Antisocial Pontardawe Woman Fined £1,000 Over Noise Nuisance

A Pontardawe woman has been left with an eye-watering court bill after failing to heed noise warnings from her local council.

Adele Pugh, 36, of Lon yr Ysgol, Rhos, Pontardawe, admitted five charges of breaching a noise abatement notice when she appeared at Swansea Magistrates' Court on Tuesday, 20th October 2020.

Breaching an abatement notice is an offence under section 80(4) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. It has a maximum penalty of a fine at level 5 (unlimited) on summary conviction.

Magistrates heard that Neath Port Talbot Council received complaints from neighbours about excessively loud music being played in Pugh's property.

The music was described by council officers as "bassy, dance and rap, generally with thudding beats", with some lyrics containing foul language.

The officers added on some occasions after responding to complaints, they could clearly hear the music in the street after getting out of their cars.

Satisfied that a statutory nuisance existed, and no doubt having exhausted informal methods of resolution, the Council issued an abatement notice requiring Pugh to crank down the volume and confine her listening to more civilised hours of the day.

In a flagrant act of defiance, Pugh breached the notice on five separate occasions in August 2020.

She was fined £200 for each offence and ordered to pay £1,000 towards prosecution costs and £34 victim surcharge.

The offences put her in breach of a suspended sentence order, for which she was fined an additional £80. The total amount payable to the court is therefore £2,114.

Magistrates' also ordered the forfeiture of the equipment used to play the music.

Neath Port Talbot Council's Cabinet Member for Community Safety and Public Protection, Cllr Leanne Jones, said: "As this case has shown our officers are still working hard on behalf of the public during the current health emergency and the level of financial penalties imposed here shows the courts take noise nuisance cases very seriously."

Knowing how the system works, I have absolutely no sympathy for Pugh at all.

I hope the hefty financial penalty makes her reflect on what an inconsiderate neighbour she has been and how she should have heeded those initial informal words of advice from the Council instead of behaving ignorantly towards them.

Every man, woman and child in this country has the right to feel safe, comfortable and secure in the sanctity of their own home. Antisocial behaviour like this, which impedes that right, can have a truly soul-destroying effect on people. It can be tantamount of torture, wearing them down both physically and mentally.

Fingers crossed that Pugh acts in a more considerate manner in future. If not, she knows the possible consequences.

Sunderland Burglar Fell Asleep on Job

A sleepy Sunderland burglar was caught having a nap as he raided a city centre restaurant.

Mark Cooper, 41, of Victoria Place, Sunderland, admitted a charge of burglary when he appeared at South Tyneside Magistrates' Court on Monday, 26th October 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 or 10 years' custody on conviction on indictment.

Police received a report of a break in at 808 Bar & Kitchen on St Thomas' Street during the early hours of Saturday, 24th October 2020.

Given the location of the venue, officers were on the scene within 4 minutes. They entered the premises to find the hapless burglar fast asleep beside what remained of a half-eaten cheesecake.

Magistrates' sentenced Cooper to 26 weeks' custody and ordered him to pay £30 compensation to the business.

Detective Constable Catherine Gibson, of Northumbria Police, said: "This burglary clearly proved to be tiring work for Cooper, and it’s safe to say he was brought back to the real world with a bump when awoken by our officers.

"This was a fantastic piece of police work between various teams - from the response cops who attended the scene so quickly to the detectives who pulled together the case to secure his conviction.

"As a result, a burglar who showed a total disregard for his victim and the wider community was arrested, convicted and put behind bars - all within 48 hours.

"We will not tolerate this kind of criminality and we understand that burglary is a crime that has a corrosive impact on society. As a result, I hope this positive and swift action acts as reassurance to businesses that we will take decisive action against burglars and thieves."

Ipswich Woman Jailed for Drink Driving

An Ipswich woman has been jailed for driving with more than five times the legal amount of alcohol in her breath.

Harriet Eade, 28, of Thurleston Lane, Ipswich, admitted driving a motor vehicle when the amount of alcohol in her breath exceeded the prescribed limit when she appeared remotely at Ipswich Magistrates' Court on Tuesday, 27th October 2020.

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.

Lesla Small, prosecuting, outlined the circumstances of the offence to Magistrates.

She said that at 10.30 am on Monday, 26th October 2020 police responded to reports of a Volkswagen Golf being driven poorly on the A14 across Orwell Bridge.

The police saw the car travelling on the opposite carriageway, so turned around to follow it. A short time later officers saw the vehicle stationary in the road with broken glass nearby indicating it had been involved in a collision. The driver, now identified as Eade, was about to leave the scene when the police car pulled alongside.

Suspecting Eade of being under the influence of alcohol, the police required her to take a roadside breath test which she failed. She was arrested and taken to the police station, where she provided an evidential specimen of breath containing 183 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath, the prescribed limit being 35 microgrammes.

Such a reading is phenomenally high and suggests that Eade's ability to drive was seriously impaired.

Magistrates were told that this latest offence put Eade in breach of a suspended sentence order imposed by Buckinghamshire Magistrates' Court on 18th February 2020.

Joanna Paton, defending, said: "She realises that it was an incredibly high reading but she is a young woman of 28, so that poses the question, 'what is going on with her?'

"She suffers with depression and takes medication but admits that she ran out a couple of weeks ago and has not yet ordered more.

"She lost her job as a result of the conviction in February and moved back in with her father.

"She knows that she needs to get her medication back on track for her depression."

Magistrates determined that the offence was so serious that only a custodial sentence was appropriate. They also decided to activate her suspended sentence order in full.

Eade was sentenced to 14 weeks' custody for driving with excess alcohol to run consecutively to the 26 weeks' custody from her suspended sentence.

She was also disqualified from driving for 5 years and ordered to pay £85 towards prosecution costs and £128 victim surcharge.

Westminster Magistrates' Court Criticised Over Coronavirus Measures

The Health and Safety Executive has criticised the coronavirus measures in place at Westminster Magistrates' Court.

According to the Evening Standard the Chief Executive of Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service, Susan Acland-Hood, has been ordered to oversee improvements at the court prior to a reinspection next month.

Ms Acland-Hood was recently appointed to a temporary role at the Department for Education and it is not known when (or even if) she will return to her permanent role at HMCTS. Kevin Sadler is currently Acting Chief Executive of HMCTS, so the task of ensuring Westminster's coronavirus compliance will fall to him.

In response to an anonymous complaint, HSE Inspector John Crookes undertook an inspection of the central London court on 7th October 2020.

He found problems with the court's coronavirus risk assessment, evidence of unsafe security checks and evidence of rooms being over occupied.

"Staff were sitting next to and facing each other and in some cases gathered around one computer", he wrote.

"While the distance between those facing each other may have been 2 metres, those side by side were closer with no further mitigation in place."

HMCTS has promised that immediate action is being taken to address the concerns raised in Mr Crookes' report.

An HMCTS spokesman said: "Public health agencies have endorsed our approach to assessing risk and keeping court users safe in our buildings.

"The Health and Safety Executive is content for the court to stay open and continue to safely hear cases."

Fireworks and the Law

Anyone living in a population centre will undoubtedly see the colourful flash and hear the distinctive crackle of fireworks over the next couple of weeks.

I quite like fireworks, but have never bought any for my own use. I much prefer the safety, variety and dazzling quality you get when you attend a professionally organised fireworks display. That said many people do like to purchase fireworks for their own use and legislation is in place to ensure that can be done as safely and responsibly as possible.

The use of fireworks in England and Wales is governed by two main pieces of legislation - the Fireworks Act 2003 and the associated Fireworks Regulations 2004 (as amended by the Fireworks (Amendment) Regulations 2004).

Today's article takes a look at the main snippets of legislation that apply to anyone in England and Wales purchasing fireworks for their own use from a non-specialist, non-licensed retailer (e.g. the corner shop or supermarket).

Three categories of fireworks can be purchased by ordinary, non-specialist members of the public - these are known as F1, F2 and F3 fireworks. Generally speaking F1 fireworks can be safely used in confined spaces, F2 fireworks can be safely used in a garden and F3 fireworks can be safely used in a field.

Sale of fireworks

Regulation 9 of the 2004 Regulations governs the licensing of retailers selling fireworks to members of the public. A retailer holding such a licence can sell fireworks to members of the public at any time. A licence can be granted by a local authority, fire brigade or the Health & Safety Executive.

A retailer without a licence can only sell fireworks or expose fireworks for sale on specific days of the year, namely:

• from 15th October up to and including 10th November, to coincide with Bonfire night;
• from 26th December up to and including 31st December, to coincide with New Year.
• On the day of Chinese New Year and the three days immediately preceding it;
• On the day of Diwali and the three days immediately preceding it.

The maximum penalty for breaching this regulation is 6 months' custody and/or an unlimited fine.

It is an offence under regulation 31 of the Pyrotechnic Articles (Safety) Regulations 2015 for a retailer to supply any of the following:

• A Christmas cracker to anyone under the age of 12 years;
• A category F1 firework to anyone under the age of 16 years;
• A category F2 or F3 firework to anyone under the age of 18 years.

The maximum penalty for breaching this regulation is 3 months' custody and/or a fine at level 3 (currently £1,000).

Possession of fireworks

Regulation 4 of the 2004 Regulations makes it an offence for anyone under the age of 18 years to have in their possession an adult firework (e.g. a category F2 or F3 firework) in a public place. It defines a public place as any place that members of the public have access to at the material time, whether on payment or otherwise.

Regulation 5 of the 2004 Regulations makes it an offence for any person, subject to the exemptions in regulation 6, to have in their possession a category F4 firework. This regulation is not limited to public places.

The maximum penalty for breaching either of these regulations is 6 months' custody and/or an unlimited fine, although breaches of regulation 4 are commonly dealt with by way of a fixed penalty.

Section 134 of the Policing and Crime Act 2017 makes it an offence for any person to possess a pyrotechnic article (which includes any type of firework) during their attendance at a qualifying music event, unless they have the permission of the person organising the event.

The maximum penalty for an offence under this section is 3 months' custody and/or a fine at level 3.

Use of fireworks

Regulation 7 of the 2004 Regulations limits the use of fireworks during night hours (defined as between 11 pm and 7 am).

It is an offence to set off fireworks during night hours unless any of the following circumstances apply:

• The fireworks are set off on a permitted fireworks night (described later);
• The fireworks are set off by an employee of a local authority for the purposes of a display organised by that authority or a national public celebration or commemorative event.

A permitted fireworks night means any of the following:

• the period between 11 pm on the first day of the Chinese New Year and 1 am the following morning;
• the period between 11 pm on 5th November (Bonfire night) and 12 midnight that same night;
• the period between 11 pm on the first day of Diwali and 1 am the following morning.
• the period between 11 pm on 31st December and 1 am the following morning.

The maximum penalty for breaching this regulation is 6 months' custody and/or an unlimited fine, although breaches are commonly dealt with by way of a fixed penalty.

Section 80 of the Explosives Act 1875 make it an offence to throw fireworks in any public place. The maximum penalty for this offence is a fine at level 3.

That concludes our whistle stop tour of fireworks legislation in England and Wales.

I hope everyone has a safe and enjoyable Bonfire night, notwithstanding the unusual circumstances of current the coronavirus outbreak.

South London Supermarket Worker Admits Upskirting Customers and Colleagues

A south London supermarket worker has admitted taking upskirt photographs of customers and using a hidden camera to spy on female colleagues using the toilet.

Alex O'Halloran, 33, of Mitcham Road, Croydon, admitted two charges of outraging public decency, one charge of voyeurism and one charge of taking an indecent photograph of a child when he appeared at Wimbledon Magistrates' Court on Friday, 23rd October 2020.

The court heard that the crimes of O'Halloran, who worked in Sainsbury's at The Green, Twickenham, were discovered when a customer saw him holding a mobile phone underneath the skirt of a schoolgirl visiting the store on the afternoon of Wednesday, 18th July 2018 (prior to the enactment of the Voyeurism (Offences) Act 2019, hence the choice of charge).

Prosecutor Trevor Green outlined the circumstances of the offence.

"An individual walked into Sainsbury's and witnessed the defendant, wearing uniform, with a phone in his hand taking a picture up the skirt of a girl wearing school uniform", Mr Green said.

The witness reported his concerns to management at the store, who reported the incident to the police. O'Halloran was subsequently arrested and an examination of his electronic devices yielded evidence of further offences.

The second charge of outraging public decency related to 388 indecent photographs, mostly of a similar nature, which were found on O'Halloran's phone and personal computer.

The voyeurism charge relates to three videos, each in excess of 30 minutes long, which were taken using a camera concealed in the female staff toilets at the store.

Police also discovered 16 indecent videos of children, which fell into Category C (e.g. nude, but showing no sexual contact).

Tony Meisels, mitigating, said: "Clearly this will need to go to the Crown Court for sentencing. We accept there are images that depict underage persons.

"He is a man of good character, facing serious charges."

Magistrates agreed that their sentencing powers were insufficient given the circumstances of O'Halloran's offences. They ordered a pre-sentence report and committed the case to Kingston-upon-Thames Crown Court for sentencing.

O'Halloran was granted conditional bail until his sentencing hearing.

He was told that he must sign the sex offenders register within three days at Croydon Police Station, giving his personal details and where he lives, plus notice of travel or any visits by children to his address.

Darlington Perjurer Jailed for Lying to Magistrates

A Darlington man has been jailed after spinning local Magistrates a yarn to avoid a drink driving ban.

Graham Nelson, 40, of Pintail Close, Darlington, admitted perjury at an earlier hearing at Durham Crown Court. He was sentenced earlier this week.

Perjury is an offence contrary to section 1 of the Perjury Act 1911. It has a maximum penalty of 7 years' custody and/or an unlimited fine on conviction on indictment.

Jane Waugh, prosecuting, told the court that Nelson was caught over the drink drive limit in the early hours of Thursday, 27th June 2019.

At the police station he gave an evidential specimen of breath containing 76 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath, the prescribed limit being 35 microgrammes.

He appeared at Newton Aycliffe Magistrates' Court a fortnight later where he admitted driving whilst over the prescribed limit, but falsely claimed that he had driven due to his partner, who has cystic fibrosis, having a medical emergency. Furthermore he claimed his partner had actually died a few days earlier on 6th July 2019, which was not really the case.

During a special reasons hearing at the same court on 1st August 2019 he maintained his dishonest account. A letter was also submitted on Nelson's behalf claiming that he had no previous drink drive convictions, when in reality he had been convicted of three similar offences.

Miss Waugh said during the special reasons hearing Nelson was visibly upset and crying, convincing the Magistrates to impose an absolute discharge and waive the mandatory disqualification period.

After the hearing, as the legal advisor reviewed her notes, she noticed photos of the medication submitted in support of Nelson's case showed a prescription dated several weeks after he claimed his partner had died.

The police were called and Nelson, who had given the false account on oath, was arrested on suspicion of perjury. He claimed that he had lied to the court because he was fearful of losing his employment if a disqualification had been imposed.

Michele Turner, mitigating, conceded Nelson's actions were "particularly cruel and distasteful", but said his partner does suffer cystic fibrosis and, as he is her main carer, she would suffer if he was jailed.

HHJ Ray Singh said the defendant has claimed "exceptional circumstances" previously, on oath, to fool a court.

He said it had to be met with a deterrent sentence, but as he does have sympathy with Nelson's partner, he limited it to 6 months' custody.

Nelson was also disqualified from driving for 2 years, 3 months.

Acting as a Pedlar Without a Certificate

For the first time during my stint on the bench we had a defendant before the court accused of acting as a pedlar without a certificate.

It is an offence under section 4 of the Pedlars Act 1871 for anyone to act as a pedlar unless they hold a certificate, granted by their local police, authorising them to do so.

A pedlar is defined by section 3 of the Act as follows: "any hawker, pedlar, petty chapman, tinker, caster of metals, or other person who, without any horse or other beast bearing or drawing burden, travels and trades on foot and goes from town to town or to other men's houses, carrying to sell or exposing for sale any goods, wares, or merchandise, or procuring orders for goods, wares, or merchandise immediately to be delivered."

With a few exceptions, this encompasses anyone selling bits and bobs door to door - you know the sort of thing.

The maximum penalty for an offence under section 4 is a fine not exceeding level 1 (currently £200).

Section 5 of the Act relates to the granting of pedlar's certificates by the police. A certificate should only be granted to a person aged 17 or older, who is of good character, who has lived in the locality for at least 28 days and who pays the application fee (currently £12.25). A certificate is only valid for one year, after which time a new certificate is required.

Applications are made in person at the local police station and the applicant requires two passport photos, photographic proof of identity, proof of their home address and the name of a referee prepared to vouch for their good character.

Section 17 of the Act imposes upon the pedlar a duty to show their pedlar's certificate, on request, to any of the following people: A Justice of the Peace, a police officer, a person to whom they are attempting to sell goods, any person on whose private grounds or premises they are found.

It is an offence, punishable by a maximum fine at level 1, for a pedlar to refuse to show their certificate to any of the people authorised to see it under section 17.

That concludes our brief delve into the Pedlars Act 1871!

Prolific Northumberland Shop Thief Jailed

A prolific Northumberland shop thief is back at his second residence after being jailed by Magistrates.

Wayne Dixon, 25, of Regent Street, Blyth, admitted eleven charges of theft when he appeared at Mid and South East Northumberland Magistrates' Court on Friday, 16th October 2020.

The well-known shop thief was identified on CCTV after stealing goods from Blyth's Asda, the Co-op, Aldi, B&M, One Stop and Holland and Barrett stores.

Dixon had been released from prison only a week before his latest thieving spree, with the items stolen having a total value of £713.63.

Prosecutor Jonathan Hanratty told Magistrates: "There's 11 shop thefts from just under a week from various stores in the local area.

"They're unsophisticated. He goes into the shops and selects items and leaves the store.

"There's an application for compensation as none of the items were recovered.

"It's also aggravated by the defendant's record. He had recently received a term of imprisonment for more shop thefts and similar offences."

Catherine Fowle, mitigating, said that her client had been placed with old associates on his release from prison, despite him asking not to be.

She added: "The offending is unsophisticated. He struggles with substance misuse and accepts that. He suffered a fractured skull injury in the early part of this year and has a lot of difficulties with that trauma.

"He's not currently sourcing the correct medical treatment."

Magistrates determined that Dixons' offences were so serious that only a custodial sentence was appropriate.

They sentenced him to 24 weeks' custody and made a compensation order in the sum of £713.63.

Isle of Wight Man Convicted of Shouting Abuse at Police Officers

An Isle of Wight man has been convicted of a public order offence after swearing and being abusive towards police officers who stopped and searched him.

Dylan Mark Kemp, 24, care of an address in Ward Close, Carisbrooke, Newport, admitted one charge of using threatening or abusive words or behaviour when he appeared at Isle of Wight Magistrates' Court on Friday, 16th October 2020.

It is an offence under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 for a person to use threatening or abusive words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby. The maximum penalty on summary conviction is a fine at level 3 (currently £1,000).

Prosecutor Liz Miller told Magistrates that Kemp had been in an area of Newport known for drug dealing when police officers stopped and searched him.

Clearly unhappy at the situation, Kemp started swearing at the officers. Nothing was found during the search, so Kemp was allowed to leave the scene. He continued swearing and being abusive towards the officers, which resulted in his arrest.

James Cameron, mitigating, told Magistrates that his client, who suffers from ADHD, had "lost his cool" at being stopped and searched unnecessarily.

Addressing the bench directly, Kemp said: "I think I have been stopped about 17 times lately and I haven't done anything wrong for four years.

"I felt harassed and scared. There were seven other people there and none of them got searched. It's because of my age and the way I look. They wouldn't stop and search you."

Kemp was fined £120 and ordered to pay £34 victim surcharge and £85 towards prosecution costs.

Leaving the courtroom, he shouted: "It's an absolute joke".

This is an interesting case in the sense that it is not often section 5 charges are laid when the only complainant is a police officer. There is a myth circulating that police officers cannot be the complainant in section 5 cases, but that is legally incorrect.

It is generally accepted, though of course not acceptable, that police officers are subjected to threatening and/or abusive behaviour by virtue of the role they perform.

That being the case, the level of threatening and/or abusive behaviour likely to cause a police officer harassment, alarm or distress is higher than that which would be likely to cause an ordinary member of the public harassment, alarm or distress. It is entirely a matter for the court whether or not that level has been passed.

The abuse directed at the officers in this case has not been reported, but we can surmise that it consisted of some pretty unsavoury comments.

As the old adage goes, whether you're speaking to police officers or anyone else for that matter: if you don't have anything nice to say, best to say nothing at all!

Leicestershire Learner Disqualified After First Driving Lesson

A Leicestershire learner driver has been disqualified after crashing during his first lesson.

Jordan Snow, 19, of Leicester Road, Lutterworth, admitted a charge of driving without insurance when he appeared at Leicester Magistrates' Court on Thursday, 8th October 2020.

Driving without insurance is an offence under section 143(2) of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The maximum penalty on summary conviction is a fine at level 5 (unlimited). The driver's licence would normally be endorsed with 6 penalty points or a period of disqualification imposed.

We have previously written a guide on driving without insurance, which some readers may find of interest.

Stacey Mills, prosecuting, told Magistrates that Snow was taking his first driving lesson with his stepfather on the afternoon of Friday, 15th May 2020 when the collision occurred.

Ms Mills said: "He had no driving experience at this time, but was aware his stepfather had at least two years driving experience.

"The car had been lent to him by his uncle."

As Snow turned onto Church Street an approaching vehicle caused the novice driver to brake sharply.

"He put his foot down harder than he thought and before he could brake he collided with a parked car in Church Street," Ms Mills explained.

"He thought that because his father was covered, he would be okay to drive," she added.

Police were called to the scene of the collision and enquiries revealed that Snow was uninsured to drive his uncle's vehicle.

Snow, who was unrepresented at the hearing, was fined £120 and disqualified from driving for 6 months.

He was also ordered to pay £85 towards prosecution costs and £34 victim surcharge.

This story serves as a further reminder to drivers that it is their responsibility to ensure they are correctly covered by a valid policy of insurance. If there is any doubt at all, they should always make active enquiries to clarify their insurance status.

They should never assume that just because one person is covered to drive a particular vehicle, the same level of coverage will also apply to them driving the same vehicle.

Too Fast Show Host Spared Totting Up Ban

Actor Paul Whitehouse, who co-created The Fast Show, has been spared a driving ban despite clocking up 12 points on his driving licence.

The 62-year-old appeared at Willesden Magistrates' Court on Saturday, 10th October 2020, where he was successful in his exceptional hardship application to avoid disqualification under the totting up rule.

Whitehouse had previously admitted a charge of speeding. His Audi was clocked by an Islington speed camera travelling at 24 mph in a 20 mph zone.

Barrister Richard Saynor, mitigating, said his client had mistakenly thought the stretch of road in question was subject to a 30 mph speed limit.

Mr Saynor told Magistrates that Whitehouse needed a driving licence to travel to work in London's West End when Only Fools and Horses The Musical, which he wrote and stars in, returns to the stage.

He added that Whitehouse was the only person in his household with a driving licence and if he was disqualified he would be unable to transport his 7-year-old daughter or elderly relatives reliant on him.

Furthermore, according to Mr Saynor, Whitehouse didn't want to expose himself to the risk of contracting coronavirus on public transport, as he didn't want to endanger patients at a heart clinic he visited four-times weekly.

Magistrates accepted that the arguments put forward amounted to exceptional hardship.

Whitehouse's licence was endorsed with 3 points for the speeding offence, but he was not disqualified despite now having 12 points.

He was fined £255 and ordered to pay costs and victim surcharge totalling £142.

Chief Magistrate Appointed High Court Justice

The Chief Magistrate of England and Wales, Senior District Judge Emma Arbuthnot, has been appointed as a Justice of the High Court.

The Honourable Mrs Justice Arbuthnot, as she will be known, will be assigned to the Family Division when she assumes her new role on 1st February 2021.

A pen portrait, published on the Judicial Appointments website, reads as follows:

"Emma Arbuthnot was born in Macclesfield and brought up in London, where she went to a fee-paying French state school. After school she started work before going to London University as a mature student where she supported herself by doing office cleaning. She was the first in her family to get a degree and the first to become a lawyer.

"Called to the Bar in 1986, Emma worked on a wide range of cases, in defence and prosecution, specialising in crime, fraud and health and safety offences.

"She was appointed as a Deputy District Judge (Magistrates' Courts) in 2000, a Recorder in 2001 (crime and then family), a full time District Judge (Magistrates' Courts) in 2005, the Deputy to the Chief Magistrate in 2012 and became the Chief Magistrate for England and Wales in 2016.

"Emma has heard a number of very high-profile cases in the Magistrates' Courts. She is a bencher of the Inner Temple.

Duncan Webster OBE JP, the National Leadership Magistrate, said:

"The Magistrates' Leadership Executive extends its sincere congratulations to the Chief Magistrate, Senior District Judge Emma Arbuthnot, upon her appointment as a Justice of the High Court with effect from 1st February 2021.

"During her tenure as Chief Magistrate, she has shown considerable commitment to the magistracy and worked tirelessly to enhance and promote the working relationship between the District Bench (Magistrates' Courts) and the magistracy.

"On behalf of the magistracy of England and Wales, we record her exemplary dedication and legacy in sustaining the Office of Justice of the Peace and wish her well in her new appointment."

Judge Arbuthnot's successor as Chief Magistrate of England and Wales will be announced shortly.

Hertfordshire Teenager Convicted of Vandalising Iconic Churchill Statue

A Hertfordshire teenager has been convicted of daubing graffiti on the iconic statue of Sir Winston Churchill in London's Parliament Square.

Benjamin Clark, 18, of Hertford, Herfordshire, admitted one charge of criminal damage when he appeared at Westminster Magistrates' Court on Friday, 9th October 2020.

Criminal damage is an offence under section 1(1) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971. Criminal damage below £5,000 is a summary offence, with a maximum penalty of 3 months' custody and/or a fine at level 4. We have previously written a guide to the offence of criminal damage, which some readers may find of interest.

District Judge Tan Ikram, the Deputy Chief Magistrate, heard that the first year undergraduate was attending an Extinction Rebellion protest in the capital when he sprayed yellow paint on the base of the 12 foot tall bronze statue.

Matt Barrowcliffe, prosecuting, told the court: "Police were present as part of dealing with that demonstration. They observed this defendant spray painting the word racist in yellow paint on the concrete base."

The cost of making good the damage was £1,602.03.

Laura O'Brien, mitigating, said the maths and philosophy student had acted impulsively when he sprayed the word "racist" in yellow chalk paint, but denied causing all the damage the statue suffered that day.

"We are not talking about paint that has the ability to cause lasting damage", she said.

"He did not attend the scene with spray paint, he did not attend the scene with the intent to damage the statue.

"This case is not about Winston Churchill and it is not about the motivation of using that word, it is about the damage that was caused.

"This is not a case about offending the history of this country... we are here to deal with a small amount of spray paint on a statue."

Ms O'Brien said that her client had been subjected to threats since he committed the offence, including one calling for him to be hanged.

Addressing Clark, Judge Ikram said: "You were part of an Extinction Rebellion protest, as a result of which you became in possession of some yellow chalk paint which you then sprayed on the base of the statue.

"You have caused great offence, it appears, to a lot of people and I'm told it has provoked a very strong reaction. The reality is that is part of the consequences of your actions.

"Tourists from across the world come here and see the beauty of London, and people like you choose to deface London. In doing so, you caused great expense to people who pay taxes.

"You offended every person who has to pay for the upkeep of these statues."

Clark was fined £200.

He was also ordered to pay £1,200 in compensation, £85 towards prosecution costs and £34 victim surcharge.

Dorset Man Contaminated Supermarket Goods During Coronavirus Lockdown

A Dorset man thought it would be amusing to lick his fingers and deliberately contaminate supermarket goods at the height of the national coronavirus lockdown.

Benjamin Best, 20, of St Andrew's Road, Bridport, admitted a charge of contaminating or interfering with goods when he appeared at Weymouth Magistrates' Court on Wednesday, 2nd September 2020. He was back at the same court for sentencing on Thursday, 7th October 2020.

Contaminating or interfering with goods with the intent to cause public alarm or anxiety is an offence under section 38(1) of the Public Order Act 1986. The maximum penalty is 10 years' custody on conviction on indictment; 6 months' custody and/or an unlimited fine on summary conviction.

Magistrates heard that Best visited the Lidl store on St Andrew's Road, Bridport on Friday, 3rd April 2020, less than a fortnight after the Government imposed strict national coronavirus restrictions.

Whilst in the store he licked two fingers of his gloved hand and then smeared them onto a packet of napkins on public sale. Clearly believing others would find his juvenile stunt amusing he recorded his antics and shared the video on Snapchat, but the prank backfired when concerned viewers alerted the police.

Charles Nightingale, prosecuting, told the court: "He was wearing a mask and gloves and licked two fingers in his mouth and then preceded to swipe those fingers across paper napkins on the shelf. He filmed himself doing it. He uploaded the small recording to Snapchat and it was seen by 60 people. It came to the attention of the police and the recording was seized.

"He thought it was a joke. He thought his friends would find it funny. But it wasn't. Some people who saw it reported it to the police."

Mr Nightingale said that Best claimed to have removed the contaminated napkins from the shelf and purchased them, although he could not produce any evidence of doing so.

Ian Brazier, mitigating, said: "I think that this was done at the spur of the moment for a laugh. He has had quite a lot of time to reflect upon it. He has been helping out at home, looking for work and worked at a carpet fitting company, something that he tried out and liked."

According to Mr Brazier, his client had taken stock of the situation and was remorseful for his actions. He had not visited the store with the intention of making the video, but had done so as he bought lockdown shopping for family members.

The court was shown a letter by one of Best's grandparents, who presumably he had been supporting at the time, which described him as a "kind and considerate" grandson who was "cheerful and hardworking".

Debbie Boitoult, Presiding Justice, acknowledged Best's remorse for his "stupid actions".

Addressing him, she said: "This was a very serious incident. Given the rules, you committed this offence at the time of extreme stress and fear. You thought it would be funny to make the video.

"It was clear that people weren't laughing, hence why you are in court."

Best was sentenced to an 18 month community order, with 180 hours unpaid work requirement and up to 15 days rehabilitation activity requirement.

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

Northumberland Man Almost Five Times Over Drink Drive Limit

A Northumberland man has avoided prison by the narrowest of margins after being convicted of driving whilst almost five times the drink drive limit.

Jonathan Skinner, 35, of Coronation Crescent, Belford, admitted a charge of driving whilst over the prescribed limit when he appeared at Mid and South East Northumberland Magistrates' Court earlier this week.

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.

Magistrates heard that Skinner was witnessed driving a Ford Transit tipper van when it crashed into a parked Mercedes on Bell Road, Belford on Thursday, 16th July 2020.

The owner of the Mercedes turned up shortly afterwards and could see that Skinner was drunk, so removed the keys to the Transit and called the police.

By the time the police arrived Skinner had walked away from the scene. Suspecting he was under the influence of alcohol, officers asked him to undertake a roadside breath test. On failing that test Skinner was arrested and transported to the police station.

He subsequently provided an evidential specimen containing 164 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath, which was almost five times the prescribed limit.

Iain Jordan, prosecuting, said: "There was a sound of metal impacting upon metal and the witness saw that the pick-up, driven by the defendant, had scraped along the side of a parked Mercedes.

"It was clear there had been a collision as there was fresh scratches on the side of the Mercedes and the witness saw that the defendant was clearly intoxicated through alcohol."

Mr Jordan, who described the alcohol reading as being off the scale, told the court that Skinner had two previous convictions for drink driving from 2006 and 2011. He also had a previous conviction for failing to provide a specimen of breath in 2004.

Matthew Purves, mitigating, said: "He spent some time in the Armed Forces where he was injured and, in coming out, he started drinking and thinking more heavily about certain failures and aspects of his life, which had caused him difficulties.

"That seems to have been a problem developing and growing for years and years. There's occasional intervention of a conviction.

"What seems to have happened this time is he's drinking much more heavily, unhealthily and at a more regular rate. Up until this time, he never realised or accepted he had a problem."

Magistrates heard that in the months since the offence Skinner had taken positive steps to address his drinking, including his attendance at alcohol rehabilitation sessions.

They sentenced him to 19 weeks' custody suspended for 2 years and disqualified him from driving for a period of 5 years.

He was also ordered to pay £85 prosecution costs and £128 victim surcharge.

Asda Arsonist Torched Merchandise

A Weymouth man torched a clothing rail at the town's Asda store after being encouraged to "go robbing" by a friend.

Alan Bowditch, 20, of Barclay Road, Weymouth, admitted a charge of arson when he appeared at Weymouth Magistrates' Court on Thursday, 1st October 2020.

Arson is an offence under section 1(3) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971. It has a maximum penalty of 26 weeks' custody on summary conviction; life imprisonment on conviction on indictment.

The court heard that Bowditch, who has learning difficulties, visited the store on Newstead Road on the evening of Thursday, 19th March 2020.

Shortly after 8 pm a shopper discovered a burning rail of jumpers and attempted to extinguish the blaze with an Asda staff member.

The alarm was raised and customers were evacuated, with the 24 hour store out of action until the following morning.

Bowditch was later arrested, with CCTV capturing the moment he held a lighter to the garments. He made full and frank admissions in interview, saying that a friend had challenged him to "go robbing" at the store.

Andrew Newman, prosecuting, said: "This defendant has gone into an Asda supermarket at 8pm and set fire to stock.

"Customers had to be evacuated. I don't know if there was a higher risk to people. Setting fire to clothing in a department store is an intention to cause an injury to persons."

Mr Newman said that £1,389 worth of damage had been caused, but had the store's sprinklers activated the damage could have been almost £2 million.

Simon Lacey, mitigating, told the court that his client had a mental age of seven.

"You have a young man with a good character with learning difficulties and I don't think he has the intention to cause harm to anyone," Mr Lacey said.

"I think there are lessons to be learned and I think he is scared of going to jail.

"He has now moved away from his friends and lives with his family. I spoke to him and he said he won't get into trouble again.

"I think he realises that these incidents have serious consequences for companies.

"He does have great family support and they are doing their best to support him and get him away from drinking and anti-social behaviour."

Richard MacRae, Presiding Justice, described the offence as "very serious", adding: "The outcome of this could have been horrendous if the fire hadn't been put out."

Bowditch was sentenced to a 12-month community order, with six months' 7 pm - 7 am electronically monitored curfew requirement.

He was also ordered to pay £1,389 in compensation.

I am sure Weymouth colleagues, with the benefit of far more information than we can possibly glean from media reports, carefully considered the most appropriate disposal in this case.

I have to say that my preliminary assessment of this offence, based on the information available and notwithstanding the offender's learning difficulties, is that it probably crossed the custody threshold. Of course just because the custody threshold might be crossed, that doesn't make a custodial sentence inevitable.