Film Director Guy Ritchie Disqualified from Driving

BAFTA nominated film director Guy Ritchie has been disqualified from driving after being filmed using his mobile phone at the wheel.

Ritchie, 51, who gave the court an address in central London, had earlier admitted one charge of using a hand-held mobile phone whilst driving, contrary to section 41D of the Road Traffic Act 1988.

The maximum penalty for this offence on summary conviction is a fine at level 3 (£1,000). Additionally, since 1st March 2017, the court has been obliged to endorse the offender's driving licence with 6 penalty points.

The case was sentenced in Ritchie's absence at Bromley Magistrates' Court on Tuesday, 21st July 2020.

The court heard that Ritchie committed the offence when he was driving his black Range Rover through Hyde Park on the afternoon of Sunday, 3rd November 2019.

A cyclist, Mike van Erp, observed Ritchie typing a message into his mobile phone, as the car was stationary in a queue of traffic. Mr van Erp, who was wearing a GoPro camera on his helmet, approached the vehicle and captured clear footage of Ritchie typing away on his phone.

The film writer and director wound down his window and said "Hello my friend" to Mr van Erp, who replied: "I don't think you should be using your text messages while you are driving. I saw you doing it back there as well."

Ritchie then wound up his window and drove slowly away as the queue of traffic started to move.

Mr van Erp uploaded footage of the offence to the Metropolitan Police's website.

In the accompanying statement, he said: "I spotted this driver texting on his phone. I stopped and whilst waiting for traffic to clear could clearly see the driver typing on his phone. I then crossed to the driver's side where I saw his iPhone lit up with the classic blue and grey message bubbles of Apple iMessage, with text, and a message in process of being typed but not sent."

Ritchie, who already had 9 penalty points on his licence, was fined £666 and ordered to pay £166 in victim surcharge and prosecution costs.

His licence was endorsed with a further 6 penalty points, which has resulted in his disqualification for 6 months under the totting up rule.

Mr van Erp, 48, said he started filming and reporting drivers after his father was killed in a crash.

His footage has led to scores of drivers facing prosecution.

He said: "I had no idea it was him. I pulled up beside him on my bicycle and told him he was using his mobile.

"He said he had stopped in traffic. Drivers should not be doing this and people like me serve as a deterrent."

Update (23/7/20): We have amended this article slightly to correct an error in our original version.

East Sussex Pensioner Jailed for Menacing Email to Police

An East Sussex pensioner has been jailed for sending a menacing email to police officials.

John Hoath, 75, of Caburn Crescent, Lewes, appeared for sentencing via videolink at Wimbledon Magistrates' Court on Thursday, 22nd July 2020.

He is currently remanded in custody in relation to a different matter.

Hoath was convicted of one charge of sending an electronic message of a menacing character, contrary to section 127(1) of the Communications Act 2003, as a result of a trial at the same court on Wednesday, 19th February 2020.

The maximum penalty for this offence on summary conviction is 26 weeks' custody and/or a fine at level 5 (unlimited).

The court heard that Hoath had been in disagreement with Sussex Police for a number of years, in relation to his conviction in 2012 for possession of a firearm and ammunition without a certificate.

This culminated in him sending the offending email to Police and Crime Commissioner Katy Bourne, the force's professional standards department and two of the force's solicitors on Tuesday, 9th July 2019.

The email accused the recipients of helping criminals evade justice and threatened them with citizen's arrest if they failed to surrender into his custody within 7 days.

Hoath's account, which was rejected at trial, was that the email had no menacing intent.

Prosecutor Amanda McCae told the court that Hoath claimed Sussex Police was "complicit in handing over his firearms to his co-defendants", which led to him embarking "on a campaign to discredit those he felt were criminally liable".

Ms Bourne, giving evidence at the earlier trial, described how Hoath had visited her office 22 times and sent her up to 150 pieces of correspondence.

Force solicitor Gillian Jones, one of the recipients of Hoath's email, said she had suffered emotionally and professionally and felt unable to do her job "without fear, intimidation or protection".

In her victim impact statement, Ms Jones told the court she had been "bullied" online and called names including "bitch" and "prostitute" which have caused her "a great deal of upset and fear".

Shelly Burroughs, mitigating, said that Hoath believed his 2012 court case was not "investigated correctly" and he had "used the avenues open to him" to dispute it.

She said there was no physical threat in his email to police officials.

District Judge Timothy Godfrey sentenced Hoath to 8 weeks' custody.

He also made a restraining order prohibiting Hoath from contacting Ms Bourne or Ms Jones either directly or indirectly, by any means whatsoever, for the next 5 years.

Addressing Hoath, the Judge said: "I conclude your email did constitute a threat and had at least a modest effect on several victims.

"I am aware you are on remand to Crown Court and you won't be released from the eight weeks I have imposed until the Crown Court has concluded its proceedings."

An unrepentant Hoath replied: "Thank you sir, I wish to appeal your orders and I dispute everything that has been put before the court."

Wasting Police Time

It is a regrettable fact that some people deliberately and vexatiously generate unnecessary work and inconvenience for the police.

It is important that the police's time, efforts and resources are channeled in the right direction where there is genuine need, instead of getting bogged down chasing red herrings.

Under section 5(2) of the Criminal Law Act 1967 a person commits an offence if they cause the wasteful employment of the police by knowingly making to any person a false report - either orally or in writing - tending to:

• show that an offence has been committed; or,
• give rise to apprehension for the safety of any persons or property; or,
• show that he has information material to any police inquiry.

The maximum penalty on summary conviction is 26 weeks' custody and/or a fine at level 4 (currently £2,500).

In accordance with section 5(3) of the Act, proceedings may only be instituted by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

According to CPS guidelines a prosecution for wasting police time is likely to be in the public interest in the following circumstances:

• police resources have been diverted for a significant period (for example 10 hours);
• a substantial cost is incurred, for example a police helicopter is used or an expensive scientific examination undertaken;
• when the false report is particularly grave or malicious;
• considerable distress is caused to a person by the report;
• the accused knew, or ought to have known, that police resources were under particular strain or diverted from a particularly serious inquiry;
• there is significant premeditation in the making of the report;
• the report is persisted in, particularly in the face of challenge.

Offences at the less serious end of the spectrum are often dealt with by means of a fixed penalty notice as an alternative to prosecution.

Alternative charges might be more appropriate in the case of a person orchestrating a bomb hoax (section 51(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1977) or knowingly raising a false fire alarm (section 49 of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004).

Polish Man Convicted of Drug Driving Within Weeks of Arrival

A Polish man has been been disqualified from driving after being convicted of drug driving shortly after his arrival in the UK.

Bartlomiej Sniec, 26, of Hill Street, Haverfordwest, admitted one charge of driving when the concentration of a specified drug - namely the cannabis component delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) - was above the specified limit - namely 2 microgrammes per litre of blood - when he appeared at Haverfordwest Magistrates' Court on Monday, 13th July 2020.

This is an offence contrary to section 5A of the Road Traffic Act 1988. It has a maximum penalty of 6 months' custody and/or an unlimited fine on summary conviction.

Prosecutor Vaughan Pritchard-Jones told the court that police officers were on routine patrol in the town when they observed a Renault Clio, driven by Sniec, clipping the kerb of a roundabout at around 7 pm on Thursday, 30th January 2020. This gave the police cause to stop Sniec's vehicle to discuss the manner of his driving.

"Police officers spoke to him and could smell cannabis coming from this gentleman's clothes and from the car. He appeared to be nervous and had blood-shot eyes", Mr Pritchard-Jones said.

A roadside drugs-swipe was positive for cannabis.

The prosecutor added: "It is an aggravating factor that the drug did have an adverse effect on his driving, otherwise he would not have hit the kerb."

Speaking through an interpreter, Sniec, who was unrepresented, said: "Yes, I was under the influence of cannabis. But, I want to make you aware that I am a newcomer to UK driving, and that was my first week of driving on the UK side."

The farmworker apologised to the court for his actions.

Sniec was fined £300 and ordered to pay £85 towards prosecution costs and £32 victim surcharge.

He was disqualified from driving for 12 months.

As a point of interest, had Sniec been convicted of the same offence back in Poland, he would have faced a maximum sentence of two years in custody.

A Painful Lesson for Hapless Carlisle Burglar

A Carlisle man has been convicted of burglary after nearly killing himself as he fled empty-handed from an auction house.

Michael Sirey Parker, 32, of Cranbourne Road, Carlisle, admitted one charge of burglary when he appeared at Carlisle Magistrates' Court this morning, Tuesday, 15th July 2020.

Non-dwelling burglary, as in this case, is an offence under section 9 of the Theft Act 1968. It is triable either way and has a maximum sentence of 26 weeks' custody on summary conviction; 10 years' custody on conviction on indictment.

Clearly emotional and embarrassed, Parker entered the dock with his head bowed saying "I feel ashamed to be here" - although perhaps not as ashamed as he will be when the national press pick up on his criminal comedy of errors in the next few days.

The court heard that Parker and his unidentified accomplice entered the premises of Laidlow Auctioneers and Valuers in the city's Rome Street at around 12.30 am on the morning of Tuesday, 7th January 2020.

Parker, who clearly isn't very accomplished in the dark art of burglary, cut himself gaining entry through a broken window, which resulted in him leaving a trail of blood throughout the building.

Furthermore, the inept burglar was caught on CCTV stumbling around in the dark, knocking items over, triggering the alarm and unbelievably leaving his mobile phone behind at the scene of the crime.

As if the police didn't have an easy enough job tracking down the unemployed 32-year-old, he gave them a further helping hand by falling off a flat roof, thereby shattering his pelvis and incapacitating himself until workers arrived later that morning.

His accomplice didn't hang around, leaving Parker behind with a very bad limp and a lot of explaining to do.

Diane Jackson, prosecuting, said: "In his interview, he fully admitted the matter, saying he drank a substantial amount of alcohol and took drugs. He had little recollection of what took place."

Magistrates heard that the pair caused £1,000 worth of damage as they stumbled around the darkened premises.

Chris Toms, mitigating, told Magistrates that his client was using valium, drinking to excess and was under the influence at the time of the offence.

"He's unlikely to repeat the experience; and he's now engaging with people to deal with his drug use," Mr Toms said.

Paul Baird, Presiding Justice, told Parker: "It was a disaster area from start to finish; and the reason it was a disaster was alcohol and drugs.

"Your life is a mess - but we think there’s a chance you can get out of this mess."

Magistrates sentenced Parker to an 18 month community order, with requirements of a 3 month drug treatment programme and up to 10 rehabilitation activity days.

He was also fined £40, as the order has no punitive element, and ordered to pay £480 compensation to Laidlow Auctioneers and Valuers.

Former BBC Presenter Gaslighted Ex-Lover in Six Month Campaign of Harassment

A former BBC presenter gaslighted his ex-lover during a six month campaign of harassment.

Ebunolu Akintade, otherwise known as Ebs Akintade, 38, of Croydon, was convicted of stalking and harassment following his recent trial at Hendon Magistrates' Court.

Harassment is an offence contrary to section 2 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. It has a maximum penalty of 26 weeks' custody and/or an unlimited fine on summary conviction. Stalking is an offence under section 2A of the same Act. It has a maximum penalty of 26 weeks' custody and/or an unlimited fine.

Magistrates heard that the former BBC London and Radio Jackie presenter had been in a relationship with estate agent Tom Chandler. The couple split in August 2019, but Akintade remained obsessed with Mr Chandler and accepted a police caution for harassment last September. After a temporary lull, Akintade resumed his campaign of harassment between November 2019 and April 2020.

Akintade - who currently works as a mental health co-ordinator, but has no formal medical training - told Mr Chandler he must be suffering from mental health issues. He tried to undermine Mr Chandler's grip on reality - a technique known as gaslighting - which left his victim feeling trapped.

The pair had a chance encounter in a Soho bar in February 2020, which resulted in Akintade sending Mr Chandler a bottle of the anxiety remedy Ashwagandha at the beginning of March. The package included a note saying: "See you at the end of your course in 60 days, your mental health matters."

A few weeks later Akintade copied Mr Chandler into a 'ranting' email to the police arranging an appointment to give his fingerprints. The very next day the spurned lover emailed Mr Chandler telling him that he had booked and paid for six therapy sessions for him.

Mr Chandler told the court: "I feel like he was using my mental heath, telling me I had mental health problems to control me.

"He insisted on coming to the doctors with me, I couldn't say no. He suggested I go and see a counsellor, I felt I had no choice.

"It was just wearing me down, I didn't know what was happening."

In his evidence Mr Chandler recounted several other occasions where Akinade had harassed him by sending rambling love letters, visiting and loitering outside his place of work and bombarding his mobile phone with missed calls and text messages.

Prosecutor Neehal Patel told that court that there was nothing wrong with Mr Chandler's mental health and Akinade was unqualified to form such an opinion.

"He had counselling, nothing was wrong, he was quite forthcoming. There were no suicidal thoughts," the prosecutor said.

"The reason he contacted the police was the unwanted contact, he got too much for him, he felt gaslighted and trapped in the relationship. His contact was unwanted and was upsetting."

Magistrates convicted Akintade of both offences and ordered the preparation of a pre-sentence report.

He was released on conditional bail until his sentencing at Westminster Magistrates' Court on Friday, 7th August 2020.

Having consulted the relevant guidelines it would appear, based on the information available, that a custodial sentence is a distinct possibility.

Update (18/10/23): This article and the Daily Mail article it references have been de-indexed by the major search engines following privacy takedown requests. It is highly likely Akintade, or someone acting on his behalf, made those requests in an effort to conceal publicity surrounding his criminal convictions.

Update (14/11/23): Akintade has been convicted of yet another offence of stalking, against yet another of his ex-boyfriends. The circumstances of the most recent case are very similar to those described above.

Community Protection Notices

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

We have previously written about two provisions of the Act - the making of Criminal Behaviour Orders and Closure Notices and Orders - in earlier articles.

Another power afforded by the Act is the ability for an authorised person to issue a Community Protection Notice (CPN) against an individual or body having a negative impact on the local community's quality of life.

CPNs are a broad-stroke method of tackling persistent or repetitive instances of irresponsible or inconsiderate behaviour - the sort of behaviour which, if left unchecked, can really plague communities across England and Wales.

This includes individual episodes of unreasonable behaviour that might not constitute an offence in their own right, but when considered cumulatively with other episodes have an overall adverse effect on members of the community.

Some examples of where a CPN might be appropriate:

• Against an individual whose favourite pastime is to attend schools, hospitals, shopping centres and the like to shout abusive comments or intimidate staff and users of those facilities.
• Against an individual who persistently films, photographs, follows or heckles employees of a particular company or members of a particular community or organisation for no legitimate purpose.
• Against an individual who maintains their garden in such a manner that it attracts vermin to the detriment of neighbouring properties.
• Against an individual in control of a dog that barks aggressively and jumps up at people whenever it is out in public.
• Against an individual that regularly burns waste and releases thick smoke into neighbouring gardens, despite having been told it is a nuisance.
• Against a takeaway business that frequently allows trade waste or customer litter to accumulute outside its premises.

The bar that has to be met for the issue of a CPN is not particularly high. A person or body subject to a CPN is liable to prosecution if they breach it.

Power to Issue Community Protection Notices:

Section 43 of the Act states that an authorised person may issue a CPN to an individual aged 16 or over, or a body, if satisfied on reasonable grounds that:

• the conduct of the individual or body is having a detrimental effect, of a persistent or continuing nature, on the quality of life of those in the locality; and
• the conduct is unreasonable.

An authorised person is defined in section 53 of the Act as a constable, local authority or person designated by a local authority.

A CPN must specify the detrimental effect the individual or body is having on the quality of life of those in the locality. It must also explain the effect of section 46 to 51 of the Act (relating to appeals, failure to comply and enforcement).

A CPN may only be issued against an individual or body if:

• They been given a written warning that a CPN will be issued unless their conduct ceases to have the detrimental effect on the quality of life of those living in the locality; and
• The authorised person is satisfied that despite the recipient of the written warning having had time to address their conduct, it is still having such a detrimental effect.

Prohibitions and Requirements:

A CPN imposes any of the following conditions on the person or body it is issued to:

• a requirement to stop doing specified things;
• a requirement to do specified things;
• a requirement to take reasonable steps to achieve specified results.

The only requirements that can be imposed are those that are reasonable to impose in order:

• to prevent the detrimental effect from continuing or recurring; or
• to reduce that detrimental effect or to reduce the risk of its continuance or recurrence.

Appealing Community Protection Notices:

A person issued with a CPN can appeal to the Magistrates' Court within 21 days of the notice being made.

An appeal can be made on any of the following grounds:

• That the conduct specified in the notice:
• did not take place;
• has not had a detrimental effect on the quality of life of those in the locality;
• has not been of a persistent or continuing nature;
• is not unreasonable; or
• is conduct that the person can not reasonably be expected to control or affect;
• That any of the requirements in the notice, or any of the periods within which or times by which they are to be complied with, are unreasonable;
• That there is a material defect or error in, or in connection with, the notice;
• That the notice was issued to the wrong person.

Any prohibitions in the notice remain in force until the appeal is determined, unless the court orders otherwise. Any requirements of the notice will cease to have effect until the appeal is determined.

A Magistrates' Court hearing an appeal against a CPN must:

• quash the notice;
• modify the notice (for example, but varying its conditions or duration); or
• dismiss the appeal.

Offences:

Failure to comply with the conditions of a CPN is an offence under section 48(1) of the Act.

The maximum penalty for this offence on summary conviction is a fine at level 4 (currently £2,500) in the case of an individual; or a fine not exceeding £20,000 in the case of a body.

The CPS is the prosecuting authority in relation to breaches of police issued CPNs; the local authority concerned is the prosecuting authority in relation to breaches of local authority issued CPNs.

In accordance with section 49 of the Act, the court may make any defendant convicted of breaching their CPN subject to a remedial order.

In accordance with section 50 of the Act, the court may order the forfeiture and destruction of any item used in the commission of the CPN breach.

Merseyside Man Convicted of Sending Revenge Porn Snap to Ex's Mother

A Merseyside man has been convicted of sending a revenge porn photograph to his ex-partner's mother.

Barry McLaren, 48, of Howell Drive, Greasby, admitted one charge of disclosing a private sexual photograph when he appeared at Liverpool Magistrates' Court on Friday, 10th July 2020.

This is an offence under section 33(1) of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015. The maximum penalty is 2 years' custody and/or an unlimited fine on conviction on indictment; 26 weeks' custody and/or an unlimited fine on summary conviction.

The court heard that McLaren, a former soldier, sent a bondage photograph of his naked ex-partner to her mother after the pair split in January 2019.

McLaren moved out of the couple's shared home, but remained in contact with the woman because of their jointly owned pet dogs. However, he became inappropriate and angry towards his victim, reaping revenge by sharing the revealing image with her mother.

Prosecutor Angela Conlan told the court that McLaren sent a copy of the image to the victim's mobile phone on 14th August 2019. She recognised it as one that had been taken three years earlier, but felt "completely shocked" and "sick" because she believed McLaren had earlier deleted it.

McLaren threatened the woman that if she didn't stop getting post delivered to his mother's house, he would "talk to her mum".

The victim then heard from her own mother, who said someone had sent a naked photo claiming it was her daughter. On seeing the image, the victim immediately recognised it as the one taken by McLaren.

The victim notified police of the photograph, telling officers McLaren was "completely controlling" when they were together.

Speaking in a victim impact statement, the victim's mother said she was "disgusted" and "shocked through and through" at receiving the image and an accompanying message saying it was her daughter.

John Brown, mitigating, suggested to District Judge Paul Healy that the offence was one of lower culpability given McLaren's personal mitigation.

"He suffered mental and physical scars and had to leave [the Army] because of injuries. He still has scars on the back of his legs from shoot outs", Mr Brown said.

Mr Brown told the court that McLaren is currently receiving support from the Royal British Legion and is remorseful for his actions, which he pleaded guilty to at the earliest opportunity.

Judge Healey said that to send such a picture to the victim's mother was a "particularly unpleasant and cruel thing to do."

He accepted the prompt guilty plea and that there were no similar previous convictions.

He said: "This offence involved intention to cause distress and humiliation to the victim and that's clear here."

McLaren was sentenced to 8 weeks in custody suspended for 18 months, with the requirement that he completes the Building Better Relationships programme and 180 hours of unpaid work.

He was also ordered to pay £85 towards prosecution costs and £90 victim surcharge.

A restraining order was made prohibiting McLaren from contacting the victim by any means whatsoever for an indefinite period.

Kasabian Vocalist Maughan Admits Drunken Assault on Ex-Fiancée

The lead vocalist of rock band Kasabian has been convicted of a drunken assault on his ex-fiancée during the coronavirus lockdown.

Thomas Peter Meighan, 39, otherwise known as Tom Meighan, of Narborough, Leicestershire, admitted one charge of assault by beating when he appeared at Leicester Magistrates' Court on Tuesday, 7th July 2020.

Assault by beating, an offence contrary to section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, has a maximum penalty of 26 weeks' custody on summary conviction.

Prosecutor Naeem Valli outlined the facts of the offence, as captured by a CCTV camera, which took place in Meighan's back garden on 9th April. He described Meighan's offence as "relatively serious" and a "sustained assault" on his then-fiancée, Vikki Ager.

Footage shows that Meighan knocked Ms Ager to the ground, dragged her along by the ankles, pushed her against a hamster cage and put his hands around her throat. He also hit her across the face and threatened to hit her with a wooden pallet.

A child witness dialed 999 as the assault was taking place. The child was described as "panicked and afraid" during the call and Ms Ager could be heard shouting "get off me, get off me" in the background.

Officers arrived and observed that Meighan smelt heavily of alcohol, was uncooperative and aggressive. Ms Ager, who was visibly upset, suffered bruising to her knees, left elbow, outer ankle and big toe as well as a reddening around the neck, which she confirmed to officers was as a result of the assault.

Meighan had initially denied the assault to the police, but admitted the offence when confronted with the "horrible" video evidence.

He cried in the dock as the video was played to the court.

At the start of the hearing Michelle Heeley QC, mitigating, made an application under section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 to have Meighan's address withheld from the public. Press Association reporter Josh Payne opposed Ms Heeley's application, telling the court that an order should not be made "for the comfort and feelings of defendants". District Judge Nick Watson dismissed the application.

Ms Heeley told the court that Meighan "offers his sincere apologies to the people he has let down and he has sought to address his offending behaviour".

Judge Watson, sentencing, said: "Ms Ager has not made a statement to police and does not appear to support this prosecution. Of course, that choice does not mean I should treat this offence any less seriously.

"You knocked Ms Ager over on more than one occasion and put your hands to her throat.

"You hit her in the face and pushed her into a hamster cage, which resulted in injury to her head.

"You threatened her with a wooden pallet. It seems you thought better of it, thankfully, and threw it down on the hot tub aggressively. Throughout most of the video she could be seen fighting you off.

"There are a number of things which make this offence more serious. A child was witness to this behaviour and she must have been frightened over what was happening.

"The police have been called before and there is evidence of previous abusive behaviour. Ms Ager says what happened was an isolated event.

"I need to take account of the fact that not only did you hurt Ms Ager, you also let down many people - band members and those who love your music.

"They will be shocked about what you did that night. I have been told that you have recognised that you have a problem with alcohol."

Judge Watson indicated that the assault crossed the custody threshold, but he was inclined to make a community order given Meighan's personal mitigation - his prompt guilty plea, remorse, previous good character and charitable work.

Meighan was sentenced to an 18 month community order, with the following requirements: 200 hours unpaid work, 3 months alcohol treatment, a minimum of 5 rehabilitation activity days and completion of the Building Better Relationships programme.

He was also ordered to pay £90 victim surcharge and £85 towards prosecution costs.

The Judge did not make a compensation order, as Ms Ager had stated that she did not want to receive compensation. Having considered Ms Ager's views, the Judge also decided it was unnecessary to impose a restraining order.

An order was made under section 45 of the Youth Crime and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, preventing the publication of any information that might lead to the identification of the child concerned.

You can read Judge Watson's full sentencing remarks here.

Birmingham Man Jailed for Sleight of Hand Scam

A Birmingham man has been convicted of using sleight of hand to defraud businesses out of cash.

Costel Ventel, 20, of St Margarets Road, Ward End, Birmingham, admitted four charges of fraud by false representation when he appeared at Haverfordwest Magistrates' Court on Tuesday, 30th June 2020.

Fraud is an offence under section 1 of the Fraud Act 2006. It has a maximum penalty of 26 weeks' custody and/or an unlimited fine on summary conviction; 10 years' custody and/or an unlimited fine on conviction on indictment.

Vental and an accomplice were visiting South Wales when they duped unsuspecting cashiers into handing over cash using a combination of distraction and sleight of hand.

Vaughan Pritchard-Jones, prosecuting, described to the court how the pair visited several businesses in the Tenby and Saundersfoot area in quick succession.

The Romanian national first targeted Saundersfoot Post Office on 17th May 2019, where he tried to con the cashier by repeatedly asking for a large amount of notes to be changed. Fortunately she was alert to the scam and refused to hand over any cash.

The pair moved on to Tenby Post Office, where Ventel asked for £980 of notes to be changed, but discretely pocketed £480 unseen after they had been counted, and asked for the initial amount to be put into his bank account.

Ventel continued to the town's HSBC branch where he used sleight-of hand to keep £450 which the cashier mistakenly thought she returned to her cash drawer.

A similar tactic was attempted in Llanelli, but did not succeed.

The court heard that a cashier had held on to the £800 used by Ventel during the Llanelli offence and then handed it over to police.

Mike Irza, defending, said: "He tell me that at this time he was under tremendous financial pressure. His mother is severely ill in Romania."

Mr Irza added that father-of-five Vental had been held in a detention centre since May, and would have been deported if this matter had not been pending.

Ventel was sentenced to 24 weeks' custody.

He was also ordered to pay £122 victim surcharge and £85 towards prosecution costs. A restitution order was made in the sum of £930 to cover the losses incurred by the businesses.

Frustrations of Being a Magistrate: Episode 4: Charge Deflation

If a decision is made to charge someone with an offence, it is of fundamental importance that the correct offence is charged.

Unfortunately that doesn't always happen, which can result in an offender being convicted and punished for a lesser offence than the one they actually committed. This phenomenon, which we shall refer to as charge deflation, is unjust for the victim and can erode public confidence in the criminal justice system.

We have previously mentioned charge deflation in the case of R v Campbell, which was heard by HHJ Robert Linford at Truro Crown Court on 8th August 2020.

In that case the Judge was clearly unimpressed that the CPS charged the defendant with assault by beating, when the injuries suffered by the victim were more consistent with a charge of assault occasioning actual bodily harm (ABH) or even malicious wounding (e.g. wounding without intent).

In July 2017 a Liverpool doorman, Stephen Bond, was attacked by a bottle-wielding woman as he tried to break up a drunken brawl outside his place of work.

The offender in that case, Sophie Robson, smashed the glass bottle over doorman's head leaving a nasty gash that was pouring with blood. Despite the severity of Mr Bond's injuries and aggravating features of the offence, the CPS decided to charge Robson with assault by beating instead of ABH.

According to CPS's guidelines, which sometimes bear very little resemblance to theoretical criminal law, a charge of ABH is normally appropriate in cases where the victim sustains serious injuries.

Serious injuries, according to the CPS, includes damaged teeth or bones, extensive and severe bruising, cuts requiring suturing and those that result in loss of consciousness. The presence of certain other aggravating factors - repeated threats, headbutting, kicking, punching, use of a weapon, vulnerable targeted victim etc - might also suggest the appropriateness of an ABH charge.

Assault by beating, a lesser charge, is usually more appropriate in cases where the victim's injuries are limited to grazes, scratches, abrasions, minor bruising, reddening of the skin, swelling and superficial cuts.

ABH, an offence contrary to section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, has a maximum sentence of 26 weeks' custody on summary conviction; 7 years' custody on conviction on indictment. Assault by beating, an offence contrary to section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, has a maximum sentence of  26 weeks' custody on summary conviction.

If the CPS incorrectly charges the lesser offence, that could mean the perpetrator of a very serious assault ends up being sentenced to weeks in custody when the offence was worthy of months or years in custody had the alternative (more appropriate) charge been laid.

Bearing in mind the normal health warning that you can't always rely on the completeness or accuracy of reports in the local press, on the basis of the limited information available this case has the distinct whiff of at least ABH about it - the victim suffered a broken nose in a vicious, unprovoked assault that was filmed and uploaded to social media presumably for the entertainment of others - yet the perpetrator was only charged with and sentenced for the lesser offence.

Trust me that this is not an isolated example of charge deflation. As the earlier examples demonstrate, there have been other cases where ABH has been downgraded to assault by beating, seemingly for the sake of expedience or convenience. Such decisions are simply wrong.

The court can only deal with the offences that appear before it. Those offences must be charged correctly if there is to be any prospect of the sentence fitting the crime.

Normal Magistrates' Court Sittings Resume

Normal sittings have resumed, at least in my part of the world.

All of our courts are now open and the District Judges are taking a well earned break (kind of), having been holding the fort since the coronavirus lockdown began towards the end of March.

Last week, for the first time since March, I actually sat in the daily remand court, but it wasn't anything like I remembered it!

We had been emailed a list of procedures that were to be followed at each court building in light of the ongoing coronavirus situation.

To begin with there were a load of cones and one way arrows outside the court building. On entering the building there is a normally a requirement to sign in, but this has temporarily been dispensed with to avoid unnecessary contact with the signing in sheet.

Instead of congregating with colleagues in the main assembly room, we had to make a beeline for our individual retiring rooms. Walking through the building there are copious amounts of black and yellow tape to indicate safe routes and passing places on the stairs and corridors.

Tea, coffee and biscuits are now strictly off limits, unless you bring your own. Every water dispenser has a sign reminding people to wash their hands after using it. The normal paper court lists, which would normally be provided as a matter of course, are now only available on request. Furniture has been rearranged so that there are fewer sitting positions in each retiring room.

Normally I would help myself to an iPad from the charging cabinet, signing it out at the start of the day and returning it at the end. Temporary procedures are currently in place whereby a member of court staff, suitably donned with disposable gloves and disinfectant wipes, delivers iPads to each Justice and collects them at the end of the day.

Drinking water is no longer provided in the courtroom or retiring rooms, but the helpful usher managed to rustle up a paper cup so I wouldn't be swigging directly from my Lucozade bottle whilst sat on the bench. As you'd expect, there are bottles of hand sanitiser all over the place.

Lay benches are sitting with only two Justices at the moment, so the third chair has been removed. Marks are taped on the floor and bench where each Justice is allowed to sit and work. All extraneous items have been removed from the courtrooms, so they have an even more clinical feel than normal. Most of the seating has been taped off to ensure social distancing between the various parties working in the courtroom. The public and press seating, which is never that busy in all honesty, has been reduced to only a couple of spaces.

Front of shop the public waiting area, which regularly accommodates in excess of 30 people, has three quarters of its seats taped off. A member of office staff, wearing a high visibility waistcoat, has been allocated to direct people to where they need to sit, ensuring that there is at least a two metre gap between each of them.

In normal times cases would be listed for either the morning session (10 am start) or afternoon session (2 pm start), but each case is now being allocated a specific time slot to help stagger attendance and thereby reduce the concentration of people in the building.

Turning to the business of the day, several defendants failed to attend and it wasn't appropriate to proceed in their absence. The prosecutor, who isn't renowned for her pace at the best of times, was being hampered by laptop issues. She had also just received the day's cases and needed time to read and digest them. There were several cases where the usual horse trading between prosecution and defence ended in stalemate, so they couldn't be resolved either.

I was fortunate to be sitting with a colleague whose opinions and decisions are usually in tune with my own. Potentially we could have concluded a lot of cases, so it was disappointing that the day turned out so bitty. It's always nice to make some headway, particularly with the system facing a bit of a backlog at the moment.

There might be a bit more to do on Monday when I'm next in court, with the Government allowing pubs to reopen this weekend.