Magistrates' Courts to Sit Evenings to Reduce Coronavirus Backlog

HMCTS has announced its intention to introduce evening Magistrates' Courts sessions in an effort to alleviate the coronavirus case backlog.

According to The Law Society Gazette, HMCTS said it was in the "final stages" of formulating its plan for the additional sittings, which would run on Monday to Friday evenings between 5 and 8 pm.

Mr Latham said that cases listed in the evening would require minimal involvement of legal representatives.

As reported in one of our earlier articles, many Magistrates' Courts have already introduced additional Saturday sittings this month. These extra sessions have focused primarily on non-CPS cases, some of which do not require the attendance of a prosecutor.

HMCTS has reported that around 22,000 cases are currently being handle by Magistrates' Courts every week, which is down from around 34,000 a week before the coronavirus outbreak.

Some areas must be having more success than others because colleagues on my bench have been told that we are handling around 90 percent of the normal workload with the exception of trials.

Personally I don't think I'll be volunteering for an evening on the bench unless I already have an afternoon sitting.

I am not over-enthused at the prospect of having to travel an hour to court, in the opposite direction to my home, on an evening after work.

Petulant Norfolk Man Spat in Former Girlfriend's Face

A petulant Norfolk man stormed out of court, having just admitted to spitting in his ex-girlfriend's face and smashing up her property.

Elliot Yaxley, 22, of Mill Road, Great Yarmouth, admitted a charge of common assault and two charges of criminal damage when he appeared at Great Yarmouth Magistrates' Court on Friday, 25th September 2020.

Common assault is an offence under section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. It has a maximum penalty of 26 weeks' custody on summary conviction.

Criminal damage is an offence contrary to section 1(1) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971. Cases of damage less than £5,000, as in this case, are dealt with summarily. The maximum penalty is fine at level 4 (currently £2,500) and/or 3 months' custody.

Prosecutor Mark Jackson told the court that Yaxley and his former girlfriend had an argument at her home on New Years' Eve. During the "prickly" exchange Yaxley called her "a tramp" and a drink was thrown over him.

The complainant demanded that Yaxley left the property and he attempted to take £400 of cash on his way out.

Mr Jackson said: "Yaxley was certainly in a temper, and there was a lot of pushing and shoving.

"He began deliberately punching the complainant's door, and spat in her face. As he left, he caused further damage to walls, floors and her car's wing mirror.

"The damage was significant - we're talking in excess of £500."

He added: "We're dealing with a spit pre-Covid, so though there was no risk of infection, it was clearly a weapon of humiliation."

Debbie Reynalds, mitigating, told the court there had been "argy bargy" between the parties.

She said: "He totally lost control of his emotions when he spat, but he admits he has an emotionally unstable personality disorder and PTSD.

"He accepts he has a long way to go with his anger management counselling.

"He is a young man who will no doubt have future relationships, and needs to learn not to fly off the handle."

Peter Candon, Presiding Justice, told Yaxley that the court was adjourning sentence pending the completion of a pre-sentence report. The court could not, Mr Candon said, rule out the prospect of a custodial sentence.

At that point Yaxley began shouting and swearing towards the bench and prosecutor.

"You're all standing here judging me and you're all taking the girl's side. It's a joke", Yaxley exclaimed.

"I was the one with the black eye, but is she going to stand here and get done for what she did?"

Yaxley stormed out of court, accompanied by security staff.

He was granted conditional bail until his sentencing hearing on Wednesday, 28th October 2020. Presumably that information will need to be conveyed to him by Ms Reynalds.

Yaxley is clearly an immature young man who doesn't quite understand how court works.

If a defendant admit their offence then, unless the prosecution accepts a basis of plea, the court sentences on the prosecution version of events. The court also has due regard to any mitigation offered on the defendant's behalf.

Lancashire Zookeeper Convicted of Stealing Penguins

A former zookeeper has been convicted of stealing penguins from South Lakes Safari Zoo.

Bradley Thomas Tomes, 25, of Tarleton, Preston, admitted two charges of burglary when he appeared at South Cumbria Magistrates' Court on Friday, 18th September 2020.

He also admitted three charges relating to selling and attempting to sell the birds. 

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 or 10 years' custody on conviction on indictment.

The court heard that Tomes' crimes were uncovered when he sold two Humboldt penguins named Pablo and Penny to exotic animals keeper Reece Oliver, who had seen them advertised on Facebook (as you do).  

When the birds fell ill their microchips were checked, which revealed they had been stolen - along with three macaws and twelve spoonbills - when aviaries at the Cumbrian zoo were raided on 22nd July and 27th October 2018.

Lee Dacre, prosecuting, said: "On 22nd July when staff opened up they saw a hole had been cut in the perimeter fence of the aviary and exotic birds had been extracted, valued at around £20,000. 

"Their suspicions fell on the defendant. He had worked there previously as bird keeper and had previously asked if he could buy some of the animals.

"Initially enquiries by Lancashire Police did not come up with anything."

He said: "On 16th January an animal collector who bought the penguins on Facebook contacted vets saying they were in bad health.

"The defendant asked the person not to contact the police and he would refund him the money.

"Staff from the zoo travelled to the collector's address and tags on the birds confirmed they were stolen. 

Paraphrasing the famous chocolate biscuit tagline, Mr Dacre concluded: "Staff were able to pick up the penguins."

The court heard that in 2019 Tomes was sentenced to 20 weeks' custody suspended for 12 months for animal welfare offences committed at the zoo.

Given the circumstances of the offences, Magistrates determined that their sentencing powers were insufficient. They sent Tomes to Preston Crown Court for sentencing.

He was granted unconditional bail until his sentencing hearing at that court on Friday, 16th October 2020. 

Sergeant Andrew Browning, of Nottinghamshire Police, who worked on the investigation, said it was "one for the books" and the penguins "made everyone laugh".

He added: "My first thought was this is one for the books, and one to tell the grandkids, because there's no way we thought we would go down there and actually find two penguins.

"It was an unusual one. Even when we went down to custody it made everyone laugh, particularly the custody sergeant who was booking us in.

"It was a real off-the-wall find."

Update (30/10/20): Tomes has been sentenced to 2 years and 8 months.

Newark Charity Shop Manager Stole from Till

A charity shop manager fiddled receipts in an effort to conceal her hand being dipped into the till.

Jodie Walker, 36, of Tithe Barn Court, Newark, admitted a charge of false accounting when she appeared at Chesterfield Magistrates' Court on Tuesday, 8th September 2020.

False accounting is an offence under section 17 of the Theft Act 1968. It has a maximum penalty of 7 years' custody on conviction on indictment; 26 weeks' custody on summary conviction.

The court heard that Walker had been employed to run the Peaceful Trust charity shop in Shirebrook in 2018. Shortly after her appointment trustees of the charity noticed a sharp decline in takings and started to monitor her activities more closely.

Angela Hadfield, prosecuting, said: "It appears that what she was doing was altering receipts to show a smaller amount than had actually been taken.

"It's difficult to put a firm figure on the actual amount because we don't know how long it was going on for."

By the time Walker was dismissed in July 2019 the Peaceful Trust could only establish that £111.88 had gone missing, but it estimates the true losses could be closer to £2,000.

Karl Meakin, mitigating, said: "It's a very regrettable matter which she is ashamed of.

"At the time of the offence her long-term partner was addicted to Class A drugs and there was sometimes a need for quick cash to help the family home and there was pressure put on her to supplement the relatively meagre income coming into the home."

Mr Meakin added that Walker's partner was now receiving treatment for his drug addiction and efforts had been made to repay some of the losses to the charity.

Walker was previously convicted of a similar offence in 2010.

District Judge Andrew Davison, sentencing, told Walker: "A second offence of stealing from an employer can lead to prison.

"You need to leave here in no doubt that a third conviction will lead to prison."

Walker was sentenced to a 12-month community order with 160 hours' unpaid work requirement.

She was also ordered to pay compensation in the sum of £111.88, victim surcharge of £85 and prosecution costs of £85.

Offences of dishonesty, particularly when they involve an abuse of trust, really annoy me.

What kind of a person steals not only from their employer, but also from a charity?

Early Removal of Driving Disqualification

In previous articles we have touched on the subject of driving disqualification, which is by far the most common ancillary order handed down by the Magistrates' Court.

Most people are familiar with the idea that certain driving offences (e.g. drink driving, dangerous driving) attract a mandatory period of disqualification, whereas the court has a discretionary power to disqualify in many other cases.

The court also has the power to disqualify a person from driving if they are convicted of a non-driving offence, which is particularly useful in the case of an offender who uses a vehicle to facilitate their crimes.

Just as the court has the power to disqualify a person from driving, so it has the power to remove such a disqualification.

Section 42(1) of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 allows a disqualified driver to apply to the court that imposed the disqualification to have that disqualification removed.

Under section 42(2) of the Act the court can either grant the application, thereby ordering the removal of the disqualification from a specified date, or refuse the application. In arriving at its decision, the court is obliged to consider the following factors:

• the character of the disqualified driver and their conduct subsequent to the disqualification being imposed;
• the nature of the offence;
• any other circumstances of the case (e.g. why the disqualified driver thinks their circumstances necessitate the early removal of the disqualification).

Section 42(3) of the Act states that an application for the removal of disqualification can only be made:

• after two years have elapsed, if the disqualification was for less than 4 years (disregarding any extension period);
• after half of the disqualification period (disregarding any extension period), if the disqualification was for more than 4 years but less than 10 years;
• after five years in all other cases.

Section 42(3) of the Act states that if the court refuses the application, a fresh application cannot be made for a period of three months.

Section 42(6) of the Act states that an application cannot be made if the driver has been disqualified until they have passed the appropriate driving test (in accordance with section 36(1) of the Act).

In the event that the court grants the application, the driver would need to reapply to the DVLA for the return of their driving licence prior to their resumption of driving.

In my experience these applications are very rare, possibly because very few disqualified drivers are aware of the legislation. When the court imposed the disqualification, it did so with the intention that it would be fully served. For that reason, these applications are only granted in compelling, exceptional circumstances.

One case I do remember involved a man who had been disqualified for drink driving for the second time in 10 years. He appeared before the court having served two-thirds of a 40 month disqualification.

Apart from his two previous drink drive convictions he was a man of good character. He had engaged very well with the requirements of a community order imposed on his last conviction. He was suitably contrite, describing himself as being ashamed to be in the position he was.

He explained that his wife had recently been made redundant and money was getting very tight. In order to keep up with the mortgage payments he was having to increase his hours at work, but having drained his savings he could no longer afford £1,000 a month on taxi fares. If he didn't get his licence back he was going to have to quit his job - a skilled, secure job - and look for alternative employment closer to home.

The application was granted.

Anyone wishing to make an application under section 42(1) should write to the relevant Justices' Clerk.

Birmingham Teenager Sentenced for School Toilet Voyeurism

A Birmingham teenager has been sentenced for voyeurism after using a mobile phone to spy on users of a school toilet.

Abdul Karim, 19, of Waverley Road, Small Heath, admitted one charge of voyeurism at a previous hearing. He was sentenced at Birmingham Magistrates' Court on Tuesday, 8th September 2020.

Voyeurism is an offence under section 67 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. It has a maximum penalty of 26 weeks' custody and/or an unlimited fine on summary conviction; 2 years' custody on conviction on indictment.

Prosecutor Osman Munir outlined the circumstances of the offence to the court.

On 2nd February 2019 a female member of staff was using the unisex toilet when she discovered a mobile phone concealed in a wad of toilet paper.

Mr Munir said: "She was very upset when she discovered the phone. She felt violated. Police were called and the phone was analysed. They discovered a video of the victim. A picture of Mr Karim was found on the phone."

"When police arrested him he told them: 'I am a pervert' and admitted he did it for his own sexual gratification."

Karim's solicitor, who refused to identify herself to journalists present (we shall comment more on that later), told the court that Karim originally planted the phone as a prank.

She said: "He was 18 at the time and was immature. It started as a prank - a joke on his part, though he accepts there was some sexual gratification.

"He knew he would get caught at some point. He is very embarrassed by what he has done. His family have strict religious beliefs and he has had to move out of the family home.

"He wanted to get good grades and go to university but he is now struggling to get a place anywhere. He says he will get a job as a cleaner if he can to make ends meet.

"He pleaded guilty first-time to the offence and must be given credit for that."

District Judge Briony Clarke, sentencing, determined that the offence was serious enough to warrant a community order.

Addressing Karim, the Judge said: "Your actions had a profound affect on your victim, who is now paranoid about using public toilets. I have taken into account your age and immaturity but this act was of a serious nature.

"You filmed the woman for a number of minutes and the video could have got into other hands. I had considered a custodial sentence but you will carry out a community order with a rehabilitation requirement."

Karim was sentenced to a 30 month community order, with requirements the Birmingham Mail omitted to report.

He will also be subject to a notification requirement for 5 years.

A few concluding comments on the shy solicitor. We live in an age where the public and media are entitled - indeed positively encouraged - to access and report on court proceedings and the judicial process.

In order to ensure accurate reporting they are entitled to information about the parties involved in public court hearings, which includes the names of the advocates involved in proceedings.

The defence solicitor in this case has done herself a disservice by refusing to confirm her identity to the media, but that information can be requested from the court.

I have made such a request and will publish the relevant information in this article once it has been disclosed.

Update (20/9/20): The solicitor representing Karim has been confirmed as being Sadia Mahmood of M & N Solicitors, Birchfield Road, Birmingham.

Magistrates' Court Listings Now Available Online

With effect from 1st September 2020 Magistrates' Court lists are available online via CourtServe.

Making the lists publicly accessible is intended to improve the transparency and openness of the justice system. The move comes slightly more than a year after HMCTS began publishing Single Justice Procedure lists online.

Anyone wishing to view Magistrates' Court lists will need to register with CourtServe. There is no charge for registration.

Courts will still display physical lists in their buildings. The current arrangements for providing lists to bone fide members of the media and court professionals will continue.

The published lists will contain the same information as the lists currently displayed in court buildings. This includes: the defendant's full name, who brought the prosecution, courtroom, time listed and case number.

Some cases - notably those involving youths and overnight remands - will be excluded from the published lists for legal or practical reasons.

Cases mentioned on the published list may be subject to reporting restrictions. Reporting restrictions may be imposed by the court at any time and it is an individual's responsibility to comply with the restrictions. You can confirm whether a reporting restriction is in place by contacting the relevant court.

Hartlepool Man Convicted of Animal Cruelty for Putting Cat in Hot Oven

A Hartlepool man inflicted horrific injuries on a cat after becoming annoyed at what he perceived as her disobedience.

Thomas Wade, 27, of Park Avenue, Hartlepool, admitted one charge of causing unnecessary suffering to an animal when he appeared at Teesside Magistrates' Court on Friday, 4th September 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 26 weeks' custody and/or an unlimited fine on summary conviction.

Stuart Haywood, prosecuting on behalf of the RSPCA, outlined the circumstances of the offence to the court.

Mr Haywood explained that Wade had received the cat, Sweetie, as a gift from his sister, who thought it would be good for him.

On 8th October 2019 Wade went to his sister's home to tell her that Sweetie, who was with him on a 3 week trial period, was no longer wanted.

Wade's sister went around to his home where she "smelled a strong smell of burning".

"The defendant (Wade) was sitting on a settee and the cat was wet and breathing rapidly, he refused to say why," Mr Haywood said.

Investigating the source of the smell, Wade's sister found burnt cat fur in the oven.

Wade eventually admitted to his sister that he had put Sweetie in the hot oven, before attempting to flush her down the toilet.

Wade's sister immediately contacted the RSPCA. Sweetie was taken to a vet, where she was found to be in a "terrible condition".

The young tabby had sustained significant third-degree burns, but miraculously survived the horrific catalogue of abuse inflicted upon her.

Wade was arrested and chilling voice recordings were found in which he described his abuse of Sweetie.

In one recording he described how he had strangled Sweetie with a cord and thrown her against a wall.

In another he said "no one can be more evil than myself" and said he wanted to "rip out its tongue" after seeing her struggle while being "choke slammed".

He also referred to himself as "evil Tom".

During a police interview Wade admitted throwing Sweetie "against four walls", claiming he could hear the voice of WWE wrestling character, Kane, in his head.

He admitted putting the terrified cat in the oven "on high for five minutes" after throwing her against a wall, saying he had become infuriated at Sweetie for "disobeying" his orders not to go under his bed.

Showing not one ounce of remorse, he added that Sweetie "had not suffered enough".

The court heard that Wade had not been diagnosed with any mental health problems, but did have autism and learning difficulties.

Matthew Agar, mitigating, said the incident was "shocking", and said he "did not want to minimise" the offence.

He suggested that Wade's learning disability was a "contributing factor" and expressed concerns about his client's welfare and state of mind.

District Judge Helen Cousins described Wade an "extremely dangerous man", adding that she would liked to have "put him in prison for as long as I could".

She sentenced him to 18 weeks' custody suspended for 2 years, with a 26 week mental health treatment requirement, up to 30 days rehabilitation activity requirement and an 18 week curfew.

He was also ordered to pay a total of £440 (presumably towards prosecution costs and the victim surcharge).

There will be people reading this - probably a significant proportion of people - who are thinking "so why didn't he get immediate custody?"

The Judge will have very good reasons for her sentencing decision, but as is typically the case they have gone unreported by the media. Remember that the court has several objectives in sentencing, of which the punishment of the offender is but one.

I suspect her logic was something along the lines of: here is a defendant that clearly has significant mental health issues, which would be better addressed by close supervision and treatment within the community instead of in prison.

Of course throwing Wade straight into prison would have served as a punishment, but would have achieved very little in addressing his underlying problems.

As a general rule of thumb - certainly with the relatively short custodial sentences available to the Magistrates' Court - you don't send offenders to prison to make them better people.

My personal opinion is that the maximum penalty for the offence of causing unnecessary suffering to an animal is nowhere near sufficient.

Liverpool Man Posted False Accusations on Facebook

A Liverpool man falsely accused another of being a "child molester" in a shocking Facebook post.

William Montgomery Coughlin, 53, of Tithebarn Street, Liverpool, admitted an offence under section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988 when he appeared at Liverpool Magistrates' Court on Friday, 4th September 2020.

The maximum penalty for such an offence is 26 weeks' custody and/or an unlimited fine on summary conviction; 2 years' custody and/or an unlimited fine on conviction on indictment.

Coughlin owns Kitty's Showbar on Tithebarn Street, where he performs as drag queen Kitty Litter.

He previously (unsuccessfully) stood as a Conservative candidate in the Blackpool Borough Council elections of 2015, achieving 17.6 percent of the Talbot ward's vote.

The court heard that the injured party, Paul Hession, posted the link to an Independent article about Coughlin on his social media profile on 29th November 2019. The article referenced Coughlin's election candidature.

Coughlin was verbally abused and Kitty's Showbar vandalised in the days that followed.

Andrew Page, prosecuting, said that the post seemed to "enrage" Coughlin, who responded by uploading an offensive video to his Facebook profile on 1st December 2019.

In the video Coughlin falsely accused Mr Hession of being a "child molester".

Coughlin added: "He interferes with young lads and leaves presents in their bloodstream".

In his victim impact statement, Mr Hession said he believed that comment referred to an untrue and disproved allegation that he had infected someone with HIV back in 2013.

Mr Hession said the comment was "extremely damaging" and could result in him being "ostracised from the gay community".

Lawrence Lee, mitigating, explained Coughlin pleaded guilty at the first opportunity to sending malicious communication and has no previous convictions.

He asked District Judge Andrew Shaw to bear in mind "the pure desperation my client felt before he posted these unfortunate entries" when sentencing.

Coughlin was sentenced to a 12-month community order, with up to 12 days' rehabilitation activity requirement.

He was fined £100 and ordered to pay £100 compensation, £85 towards prosecution costs and £90 victim surcharge.

Judge Shaw also made a restraining order prohibiting Coughlin from contacting Mr Hession by any means whatsoever for a period of 3 years.

Misbehaviour in the Magistrates' Court

I remember being petrified the first time I ever attended the Magistrates' Court.

The fear of the unknown, coupled with the solemn surroundings of the courtroom, made me very apprehensive, even though I was only attending as an observing member of the public.

Attending any court of law should be a dignified experience. Important decisions are made there. Decisions that can have a significant impact on the liberty, livelihood, family and friends of those involved in proceedings.

Unfortunately there are rare occasions where the solemnity and authority of the court are disrespected by those in attendance.

Today, at the request of a reader, I provide a brief summary of the options available for tackling any sort of misbehaviour in the courtroom or court precincts.

It should be said that the bench will usually take a pragmatic approach to dealing with misbehaviour, allowing some instances to go unchallenged depending on the circumstances.

Minor Transgressions

The District Judge or Presiding Justice should challenge any minor transgression they notice or is brought to their attention. Examples might include a person:

• Wearing inappropriate clothing;
• Chewing gum or eating in the courtroom;
• Talking too loudly or otherwise causing a distraction from the public gallery;
• Addressing the bench or officer of the court in a disrespectful manner.

Normally the District Judge or Presiding Justice will raise the matter by addressing the transgressor directly. They will give some words of advice or, if appropriate, a warning of further consequences if the matter isn't remedied. In the overwhelming majority of cases that brings about an instant moderation of the transgressor's behaviour. Suppose the transgressor persisted, they could be asked to leave the courtroom or court building. If asking didn't work then they could be compelled to do so.

Legislation (section 53 of the Courts Act 2003) permits a court security officer to use reasonable force, if necessary, to remove any person from the courtroom or the court building if they are causing interference or delay to the proceedings of the court, causing any sort of disorder or to secure the safety of any person in the court building. The same legislation permits a court security officer to use reasonable force, if necessary, to remove any person from the courtroom at the direction of a Judge or Justice of the Peace. 

If the transgressor persisted in disrupting the proceedings of the court, then the bench may well decide to escalate matters.

Contempt of Court

The nuclear option, generally reserved for the most serious or persistent instances of misbehaviour, is for the court to order that the person be taken into custody in accordance with section 12 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981.

The procedure to be followed in contempt cases is outlined in Part 48 of the Criminal Procedure Rules, which are available online.

Unless it is impracticable to do so, the rules dictate that a person should be warned about the powers available to the court if they persist in their misbehaviour. They should be given the opportunity to account for their misbehaviour, apologise to the court, and informed of their right to take legal advice.

If that warning goes unheeded the court can order that the person (hereafter referred to as the alleged contemptor) be detained. They would be handcuffed and taken to the cells, where they spend a few hours quietly reflecting on their misbehaviour. They are entitled to legal advice, invariably from the duty solicitor, in those circumstances.

Before the court rises the alleged contemptor is brought back to the dock and given the opportunity to apologise for their earlier misbehaviour.

If they admit the offence and appear suitably contrite the court will often, although not always, release them from custody at that point. If, however, their conduct has been particularly poor, or they refuse to apologise, or they continue to misbehave, they will face a further penalty for the offence.

Suppose the alleged contemptor denied their behaviour amounted to contempt, then a hearing would be required to determine the matter. The rules allow that hearing to be conducted by the same bench.

Contempt proceedings in the Magistrates' Court are exceptionally rare, but the option is always available in cases where any person:

• "wilfully insults the justice or justices, any witness before or officer of the court or any solicitor or counsel having business in the court, during his or their sitting or attendance in court or in going to or returning from the court; or
• "wilfully interrupts the proceedings of the court or otherwise misbehaves in court."

In the Magistrates' Court, the maximum penalty for this offence is one months' custody and/or £2,500 fine. In the Crown Court, the maximum penalty for this offence is two years' custody or an unlimited fine. 

The court does not have the power to order a person found in contempt to pay the victim surcharge.

Filming, Recording or Photography

Section 9 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 specifies that it is contempt of court "to use in court, or bring into court for use, any tape recorder or other instrument for recording sound, except with the leave of the court" or to publish any such recording. In the twenty-first century, this also encompasses any instrument that records images in addition to sounds - e.g. mobile phones or cameras being used to take videos - although this section would not include an instrument that recorded images only.

Anyone found in contravention of that section could be dealt with under section 12 as previously described. The court also has the power to order the forfeiture, destruction or disposal of any such recording instrument the person has in their possession.

Case law (R v D [2004] EWCA Crim 1271) has established that taking photographs within the courtroom or court building can also amount to contempt. You can read a summary of the case here.

In this case a man took a photograph of the defendant, who happened to be his brother, stood in the dock alongside a prison officer; he took a second photograph of a witness in the box, although the quality was too poor to recognise the witness; he took a third photograph in the canteen area of the court building.

The trial Judge took a dim view of the man's actions and he was sentenced to 12 months' custody for contempt. He appealed the sentence but the High Court upheld the decision of the trial Judge, noting that he was well within his rights to impose the sentence he did.

Section 41 of the Criminal Justice Act 1925 makes it a specific offence to take any image (be that a photograph, video, portrait or sketch) or attempt to take any such image in court "of any person, being a judge of the court or a juror or a witness in or a party to any proceedings before the court, whether civil or criminal."

The section goes on to define "court" quite broadly, as encompassing any courtroom, court building or court precincts. It also states that the image will be considered as being made in court if it is made of any person entering or leaving any courtroom, court building or court precincts.

The maximum penalty for this offence is a fine at level 3 (currently £1,000 maximum).

What this means, in the simplest terms, is that it is a specific offence for anyone standing on court grounds - be that inside the building, the front step, car park, garden or whatever - to take photographs or videos.

Most people don't realise that court sketches they see in the media are actually drawn from memory later on - this legislation doesn't allow the artist to draw when they are inside court. Similarly any photographs you see in the media are always taken from the public pavement, never from the court precincts.