A Quick Guide to the JTAAAC

A fairly brief post today, to consider the role of the Justices' Training, Approvals, Authorisations and Appraisals Committee (JTAAAC).

The JTAAAC, just as the name suggests, is responsible for ensuring that every Justice of the Peace is correctly qualified, experienced and competent to perform their role in the Adult and, where applicable, the Youth Courts.

The Family Training, Approvals, Authorisations and Appraisals Committee (FTAAAC) has a broadly similar function, albeit in relation to Justices sitting in the Family Court.

A few years ago every Bench had its own version of the JTAAAC (or Bench Training and Development Committee, as it was called at the time), but it is now quite common for a JTAAAC to oversee two (or more) Benches. The North & East Devon, South & West Devon, Cornwall and Dorset Benches, for example, are covered by a single JTAAAC.

The composition and role of the JTAAAC is governed by The Justice of the Peace Rules 2016.

The JTAAAC is responsible for identifying the training needs of every Justice and preparing a training plan to ensure those needs are met. The committee is comprised of between 6 and 24 Justices depending on the number and sizes of the Benches it covers. There are often several sub-committees to deal with specific aspects of the JTAAAC's work.

Each Bench is also represented by a professionally qualified HMCTS legal advisor. The Rules say that this should be the Justices' Clerk (or Head of Legal Operations as the current incarnation of the role is known) or one of their assistants (e.g. a Senior Legal Manager, Legal Team Manager or Legal Advisor).

The Rules permit three JTAAAC members to make decisions pertaining to an individual Justice. Other decisions require the agreement of at least three or one-third of the full committee, whichever is greater.

A separate panel, known as the JTAAAC Selection Panel, considers the applications of Justices applying to join the JTAAAC and appoints the most suitable candidates. 

It is the JTAAAC's responsibility to ensure that the training needs of every Justice are met. It does this by preparing a training plan and delivering training sessions as directed by the Lord Chief Justice, via the Judicial College.

The JTAAAC considers applications from those Justices wishing to sit in the Youth Court and grants authorisations for those it deems suitable. It is also responsible for recommending the revocation of authorisation for any Youth Justice who fails to maintain the required level of competence.

The JTAAAC is responsible for the selection, training and approval of those Justices wishing to preside in the Adult or Youth Courts. It is also responsible for revoking the approval of any presiding Justice who fails to maintain the required level of competence.

The JTAAAC maintains a list of Justices with the required level of competence to sit on appeals at the Crown Court. It trains and authorises Justices to undertake the mentoring and appraisal of their colleagues on the Bench.

Finally, the JTAAAC is responsible for ensuring that every Justice undergoes appraisal for every role they have on the Bench. Should a Justice fail to maintain the required level of competence, then it is the responsibilty of the JTAAAC to report them to the Advisory Committee for the consideration of disciplinary action.

Dorset Coach Driver Convicted of Dangerous Driving

A Dorset coach driver who lost control and crashed his vehicle was recorded dancing in the driving seat.

Kieron Jury, 27, of Westerham Road, Bournemouth, admitted a charge of dangerous driving when he appeared at Poole Magistrates' Court on Wednesday, 17th February 2021.

He also admitted a charge of leaving litter.

Dangerous driving is an offence contrary to section 2 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. It is an either way offence with a maximum penalty of 6 months' custody and/or an unlimited fine on summary conviction, or 2 years' custody on conviction on indictment.

Magistrates heard that the now unemployed driver was behind the wheel of a 61-seater Scania executive coach, operated by Laguna Travel, when the collision took place near the Ashley Heath roundabout on Sunday, 15th March 2020.

Jury, who was returning from Gatwick Airport, had just left the A31 and joined the A338. Just after the roundabout he lost control of the 17-ton vehicle, which collided with the central reservation before being deflected back across the carriageway and ending up in a ditch.

Charles Nightingale, prosecuting, outlined the unusual circumstances of the offence.

"He was in Hampshire travelling along the A31 to the slip road junction of Ashley Heath roundabout at a time just short of 6 o' clock in the evening," Mr Nightingale said.

"His behaviour as he was travelling along the A31 became increasingly bizarre.

"He was throwing litter out the window, but internal CCTV shows him dancing on the driver's seat, at times not having any control over the vehicle and travelling at speed."

Mr Nightingale said that a witness in a stationary car at the roundabout had been concerned at the speed of the coach as it exited the roundabout.

"It is impossible to say the speed when the vehicle was going round the corner," he added.

Leah Dillon, mitigating, said: "At the time of the incident, this young man was suffering from undiagnosed ADHD.

"He was so remorseful and in fear of why he was behaving like this. He has accessed the relevant agencies to help him. He his on medication and his long-term partner is extremely supportive."

Addressing Jury, Martin Arthur, Presiding Justice, said: "You are lucky you didn't kill yourself or anyone around you, we appreciate it is down to an undiagnosed problem. The end would have been killing yourself and depriving [your partner and son] of a father and a partner.

"You were facing custody, however we are of the belief that we need to deal with the problem, you need help."

Reflecting on events, Jury said: "I do understand the seriousness of my actions. I go to bed every night thinking about it, having this date over my head. I am glad to be able to do my best to move forward."

Jury was handed a 12-month community order with a 3-month electronically monitored curfew and a requirement to complete up to 35 days' rehabilitation activity.

He was also disqualified from driving for 24 months and ordered to pay £85 towards prosecution costs and £95 victim surcharge.

No separate penalty was imposed for the littering offence.

Sunderland Teenager Used CS Gas on Nightclub Bouncers

A Sunderland teenager sprayed two door supervisors with CS gas when she was refused admission to a city centre nightclub.

Morgan Bulmer-Gibson, 18, of Well Street, Pallion, admitted two charges of assault occasioning actual bodily harm when she appeared at South Tyneside Magistrates' Court on Friday, 19th February 2021.

She also admitted a charge of possession of a weapon designed for the discharge of a noxious liquid.

Assault occasioning actual bodily harm, an offence contrary to section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, has a maximum penalty of 26 weeks' custody on summary conviction; 7 years' custody on conviction on indictment.

Possession of a weapon designed for the discharge of a noxious liquid, an offence under section 5(1)(b) of the Firearms Act 1968, has a maximum penalty of 26 weeks' custody on summary conviction; 10 years' custody on conviction on indictment.

An offence under section 5(1)(b) is not subject to a statutory minimum sentence.

In the case like this, with two or more either-way offences, the Magistrates' Court can impose a maximum penalty of 52 weeks' immediate custody.

The court heard that Bulmer-Gibson was part of a group when she visited Illusions on the city's Holmeside in the early hours of Sunday, 1st March 2020.

Grace Taylor, prosecuting, outlined the circumstances: "The doormen were working when a group of males and females came to the club.

"Other members of the group were outside, and as the doorman took them outside he stumbled and fell along with one of the group.

"The group left but came back a few minutes later and as soon as they were outside, the defendant has sprayed the substance into their eyes.

"One described being sprayed with pepper spray, and the second doorman was sprayed. Their eyes were stinging and sore.

"The defendant was about two feet away and a doorman used his right hand to grab the container, which had the wording 'NATO CS Gas'.

"The police find the defendant nearby. An aggravating factor was that she caused injury, it was on a premises and she was part of a group.

"The defendant admitted that she used it for protection."

The court heard that Bulmer-Gibson has a previous conviction for affray from when she was a youth (so not that long ago).

District Judge Kate Meek adjourned the case pending the completion of a pre-sentence report.

Bulmer-Wilson was granted conditional bail until her sentencing at the same court on Monday, 29th March 2021.

Deprivation Orders

The court has the power to deprive an offender of property used for purposes of committing or facilitating the commission of an offence.

This power is conferred by section 153 of the Sentencing Act 2020. Prior to the enactment of that legislation, an identical power was available under section 143 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000.

Whether or not to make a deprivation order is entirely a matter for the court. It does not require an application by the prosecution.

Section 153 of the Act states that a deprivation order can be made in respect of any property lawfully seized from the offender; or that was in the offender's possession or under their control when they were apprehended for the offence; or that was in the offender's possession or under their control at the time a summons was issued for the offence.

Section 154 outlines the circumstances in which a vehicle is considered as being used for the purposes of an offence. A vehicle can be considered thus if the offender was driving, attempting to drive, or in charge during the commission of an imprisonable offence under the Road Traffic Act 1988; an offence of manslaughter; or an offence under section 35 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 (wanton and furious driving).

In accordance with section 155 of the Act, the court must have regard to the value of the property and the financial and other effects of depriving the offender of it.

If the court makes a deprivation order, it can still deal with the offender in any other way.

Section 156 permits the court to order that property deprived in connection to an immigration or asylum offence be taken into the possession of the Secretary of State or police.

Section 159 outlines the circumstances in which proceeds from the disposal of property subject to a deprivation order can be paid to the injured party of the offence.

Section 160 lists other legislation allowing the deprivation or forfeiture of property from the offender. It states that nothing in those earlier provisions prevents the court from making an order under section 153 or vice versa.

The circumstances in which a deprivation order could be made are virtually limitless, but could include some of the following:

• To deprive a burglar or car thief of tools used to break into buildings or vehicles.
• To deprive someone convicted of stalking or harassment from recording, photographic or computer equipment used to target their victim.
• To deprive a poacher of equipment, vehicles or animals used to illegally pursue game.
• To deprive a shop thief of any bag or clothing specially adapted to conceal stolen goods.

Sunderland Woman Stole Money from Own Bank Account

A Sunderland woman stole almost £2,000 by emptying her bank account when she received an incorrect credit payment.

Mandy Sloanes, 50, of Polmuir Road, Plains Farm, Sunderland, admitted a charge of theft when she appeared at South Tyneside Magistrates' Court on Tuesday, 16th February 2021.

The court heard that a Post Office payment error saw £2,900 paid into her bank account in error, when actually she was only entitled to £29.

Staff immediately spotted the mistake, which was made on 9th October 2019. Sloanes was asked to sign a receipt for the money before she left the branch, on the understanding that action would be taken to recover the payment.

The days ticked by and the money remained in Sloanes' account, so she eventually succumbed to temptation by spending it.

Glenda Beck, prosecuting, outlined the facts: "The defendant visited the Post Office on 9th October to make a credit transaction of £29.

"This was at a Post Office counter which transferred to her bank £2,900 due to an error, which was immediately identified by the shop owner.

"She was informed and agreed not to take out the money and she signed a receipt. Due to time, only £900 was returned.

"She was interviewed on 17th August, during which she fully admitted spending the money. It was £1,971.

"When asked, she said 'it's in my account, so it's mine'. She said that she didn't ask for it to be put into her account.

"She admitted signing the document when told of the error. She was told of the options she had.

"She could have written a cheque or bank draft, but she said she didn't know she could do that."

Jerry Armstrong, mitigating, said: "I think it's a theft every time that she made a withdrawal during that period, knowing at that point in time the money wasn't properly accredited to her.

"I don't know why arrangements weren't made directly with the bank to get the money recouped, knowing it had been put into her account."

"The court heard that Sloanes had no recent previous convictions, having stayed out of trouble for a number of years.

Addressing the 50-year-old carer, District Judge Kate Meek said: "You haven't half let yourself down here.

"The bottom line is that you knew that it wasn't your money to spend, no matter how you try to justify it.

"It's criminal and it's dishonest. It's out of character for you."

The Judge handed Sloane a 12-month conditional discharge and ordered her to pay £720 in compensation to the Post Office in question.

The usual prosecution costs and victim surcharge were waived, in order to give priority to the compensation payment.

We have previously written a guide to theft, which discusses offences similar to this.

Spending money which you know you are not entitled to is theft, clear and simple. It doesn't matter where that money came from.

West Berkshire Carer Fleeced Vulnerable Victim for Thousands

A West Berkshire carer preyed on a vulnerable woman and plundered thousands from her bank account.

Velda Little, 66, of The Park, Lambourn, admitted four charges of fraud by misrepresentation at an earlier hearing at Reading Magistrates' Court.

She was back at the same court for sentencing on Thursday, 11th February 2021.

Megan Tapley, prosecuting, outlined the circumstances of the offences, which took place on various dates in March 2019. The elderly victim, Sylvia Sturgess, passed away before the case got to court.

"The victim in this case was aged 85, disabled and particularly vulnerable," began Ms Tapley.

"She relied on friends for day-to-day activities and carers came in three times a day."

Little, who had previously acted as a carer to Mrs Sturgess, had a key for her property.

She knew that Mrs Sturgess kept her bank cards in a purse in the living room.

One day a relative of Mrs Sturgess, Elizabeth Brosnan, who had power of attorney, was helping her with her bank account when they discovered numerous, unauthorised cash withdrawals.

"It amounted to £5,600 in total", continued Ms Tapley.

"For the purposes of this case, we're attributing a loss of £2,000 to the defendant.

"There were various withdrawals from an ATM machine."

Ms Tapley highlighted that Little had deliberately targeted Mrs Sturgess, because of her vulnerabilities. In the Crown's view, it was a case of high culpability.

A victim impact statement given by Mrs Sturgess before her death was read to the court.

"It's left me feeling upset; I could easily cry," she said.

Little showed no emotion as Mrs Sturgess' statement was read out.

Belinda Knight, mitigating, told the court that her client had her own health problems, which had left her unable to work for the past 40 years.

Ms Knight suggested that one of the reasons her client, who had no previous convictions, had been "propelled into the criminal justice system" at her time of life was to help one of her children who was facing eviction.

"It doesn't justify what happened, but it's background," continued Ms Knight.

"I'm grateful to my friend (the prosecutor) for claiming only £2,000 in compensation."

Ms Knight concluded: "She lives in the small community of Lambourn - and it is a community where she has lived for the past 47 years.

"There's a public shaming element she has yet to face.

"Fortunately no-one has brought the subject up with her."

She added: "I'm guessing there's no reporter in court?"

When informed that actually there was a reporter in court, Ms Knight replied: "In light of that, I'm not going to say anything further."

Magistrates were of the opinion that Little's offences were serious enough to justify a community order.

Little was handed a 12-month community order with a 6-month curfew requirement. She must also undertake work with the probation service for an undisclosed number of days.

She was ordered to pay £2,000 in compensation, £85 towards prosecution costs and £85 victim surcharge (the rate in force at the time of the first offence).

The court always views cases like this, where there is an abuse of trust and particularly vulnerable victim, very seriously. There will be some reading this who will be of the opinion that Little has gotten off lightly with the sentence imposed.

Lambourn is a small, tight-knit community. As alluded to in court, Little's crimes will undoubtedly feature as the subject of village tittle-tattle. The prying eyes and wagging tongues are likely to be a source of discomfort and embarrassment for years to come.

Magistrates Defer Sentencing Winchester 999 Call Pest

Magistrates have deferred sentencing a Winchester man who repeatedly makes nuisance phone calls to the emergency services.

Anthony John Walters, 57, of St John's Road, Winchester, admitted seven breaches of his Criminal Behaviour Order (CBO) when he appeared at Basingstoke Magistrates' Court last week.

Breaching a CBO is an offence under section 30 of the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014. The maximum penalty is 6 months' custody and/or an unlimited fine on summary conviction; or 5 years' custody and/or an unlimited fine on conviction on indictment. In accordance with section 30(3) of the Act, the court is not empowered to impose a conditional discharge in respect of an offence.

A five-year CBO was made against Walters in April 2019, the conditions of which prohibit him from contacting the emergency services save for a genuine emergency situation. Prior to that Walters was subject to an earlier CBO, which had similar conditions.

Over the years he has breached the order literally hundreds of times and been jailed several times as a result. Custody is clearly no deterrent because the nuisance calls resume the moment he is released.

The latest breaches took place on 7th April, 15th May, 9th June (twice), 10th June, 3rd July and 13th July 2020. However, there has been no reported breaches since then.

Sensing a glimmer of hope, Magistrates took the unusual decision of deferring Walters' sentencing until Thursday, 8th July 2021.

They told Walters their expectation that he would not reoffend in the meantime and would be able to produce evidence that he had sought medical or psychiatric help.

In reference to Walters' offences, Chief Inspector Jon Turton, Hampshire Constabulary's District Commander for Winchester, said: "We take this seriously because nuisance calls take up valuable time that could be better spent talking to people in genuine need.

"Receiving a high number of malicious calls directly affects the service we can give to other people. Call handlers should also be able to work without being verbally abused.

"It is disappointing to see Walters repeatedly ignore the Criminal Behaviour Order he had received."

Deferral of sentence is always an option available to the court under section 5 of the Sentencing Act 2020. A deferral of up to six months is permitted, but can only be made with the agreement of the offender.

It is unusual to see deferral of sentence in the Magistrates' Court, because the usual expectation is that the same bench will follow through with sentencing at the end of the deferral period. That is difficult to achieve with the irregular sittings of a bench of lay justices, but can be done by a District Judge.

Deferral of sentence is quite common in the Crown Court, because the judge can simply reserve the matter for sentencing at a time convenient for them.

Roehampton Beauty Salon Boss Kept Unlicensed Dangerous Wild Animal

A beauty salon boss has been landed with a hefty bill for keeping an African wildcat as a pet at his south London home.

James Brown, 36, of Roehampton House, Roehampton, was convicted of keeping a dangerous wild animal without a licence at a previous hearing at Lavender Hill Magistrates' Court.

He failed to respond to the summons, so the offence was proven in his absence.

Brown also failed to attend for sentencing at the same court on Thursday, 11th February 2021.

Keeping a dangerous wild animal without a licence is an offence under section 1 of the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976. The maximum penalty on summary conviction is a fine at level 5 (unlimited).

Wandsworth Council brought the prosecution after quite a protracted investigation, which you can read more about on its website.

The offence related to Brown's keeping of a serval, which is close relative of the cheetah.

Servals, which can run at speeds of up to 55 mph and leap 12 ft in the air, are not generally considered as suitable pets. Apart from a few exceptions, they cannot be kept legally in the UK unless covered by a licence.

Brown had made tentative enquiries about licensing a serval called Zena, but had failed to submit an application. Even if he had, there was no way the council would have granted a licence for keeping a dangerous wild animal in such a densely populated, residential area.

He was living at a property in Old Devonshire Road, Balham, at the time and had told council officers that he was planning a move to the neighbouring borough of Lambeth.

However, two months later a concerned member of the public contacted the council having seen Zena sitting on a windowsill at the Old Devonshire Road property.

When the council made further enquiries, Brown falsely stated that he no longer owned Zena. He also reiterated his intention of moving to Lambeth.

The trail went cold for a further six months until another member of the public reported seeing Zena sitting on a windowsill at a property in Vitali Close, Roehampton. The council quickly confirmed that Brown now resided at the property.

Animal welfare officers, accompanied by the police, visited the property and seized Zena. Brown stated that Zena was not a serval, but was actually a less dangerous species of wildcat.

Brown also claimed that he had been in contact with a named council officer about licensing Zena. Unfortunately for him, the officer he name-dropped was actually present and knew nothing about a licence application.

Over following months Brown gave several media interviews in which he claimed to have been actively seeking a licence for Zena. He told journalists that he rehomed the animal as an act of benevolence to a previous owner, but enquiries revealed that he had actually purchased Zena from a company in Russia.

District Judge Adrian Turner fined Brown £1,000 and ordered him to pay £4,000 towards prosecution costs and £181 victim surcharge.

He was also disqualified from keeping dangerous wild animals for a period of two years.

Councillor Steffi Sutters, cabinet member for community services and the environment at Wandsworth Council, said: "Keeping a wild animal like this as a pet is a risky business, but it is possible if certain licence requirements are met. These have been written into law to not only ensure the safety of the public but also the welfare and well being of the animal.

"However it is not suitable to keep a predatory wildcat that should be roaming the wide-open plains of Africa in a cramped residence in Roehampton.

"In this case Mr Brown sought to deceive the authorities about what species the animal was and where it was being kept. It was only as a result of complaints from members of the public that we were able to track it down.

"Happily as a result of the action we were able to take this wildcat is now living and thriving in much more natural and appropriate surroundings."

Boozy Morden Student Assaulted and Screamed Homophobic Abuse at Emergency Workers

A drunken design and art student assaulted and screamed homophobic abuse at emergency workers after downing a bottle of tequila and claiming to have taken an overdose.

Zofia Nowacka, 19, of Morden, admitted five offences, including three of assaulting an emergency worker, when she appeared at Wimbledon Magistrates' Court on Thursday, 11th February 2021.

Magistrates heard that Nowacka had worked herself into a drunken state and decided it would be a good idea to call for an ambulance in the hope it would take her to Charing Cross Hospital, where she had convinced herself her boyfriend would be.

The plan went awry when the ambulance crew - paramedics Elizabeth Keegan and Matthew Morgan - took her to St George's Hospital in Tooting.

Prosecutor Trevor Green outlined the circumstances of the offences, which took place during the late evening of Wednesday, 18th November 2020.

He said: "She asked what hospital she was at and when told she was at St. George's she became aggressive towards Ms Keegan and got into her personal space and squared up to Mr Morgan and uttered the homophobic abuse."

The paramedics left in an effort to de-escalate the situation and Nowacka shouted "go fuck your mum" at them. She also unleashed a tirade of verbal abuse, which included homophobic comments, in their direction.

Parma Sharma, a security guard in the hospital's A&E department, stepped in and tried to remove the abusive student from the building.

"When he tried to escort her away she started screaming and grabbed Ms Keegan's hair and it took all of them to get her off and remove her from the building," said Mr Green.

"The defendant continued to be aggressive and punched Mr Sharma to the right cheek and continued hitting the security guard as attempts were made to get her handcuffed and she was taken to the ground.

"She was arrested and kept spitting in the police van on the way to Wandsworth Police Station, where there was further aggression directed towards the custody officer.

"Once in her cell she took off her top and put it around her neck and the officer, Angela Clift, tried to remove it and in doing that the defendant raised her hand and the officer received a blow to her cheek."

Probation Officer Janet Barnes addressed the court in relation to a pre-sentence report on Nowacka.

Ms Barnes said that Nowacka had described herself as being "completely out of it", although the bottle of tequila meant she couldn't remember much.

"She realises it is serious and is very, very sorry and has not intention of repeating such behaviour and apologises to the victims."

John Connolly, mitigating, reminded Magistrates that his client was of previous good character.

"She would be horrified if her friends, many who are in the LGBTQ community, knew she behaved like this and used these words," he said.

"Alcohol must have played some part in this. This is a one-off and there is genuine remorse."

Taking everything into account, Magistrates decided that the combination of offences was serious enough to justify a community order.

Nowacka was handed a 12-month community order with the requirement that she completes up to 15 rehabilitation activity days.

She was also ordered to pay each of the emergency workers £75 in compensation (so £300 in total), fined £50 for causing a nuisance on NHS premises and ordered to pay £95 victim surcharge.

Gloucester Shop Thief Jailed and Banned from Retail Premises

A prolific Gloucester shop thief has been jailed and banned from retail premises.

Tavoy Weston, 33, of Worcester Street, Gloucester, admitted nine charges of theft and one of obstructing a police constable when he appeared at Cheltenham Magistrates' Court on Thursday, 11th February 2021.

We have previously written guides on both of these offences, which readers may find of interest (theft guide and obstructing or resisting a police constable guide).

Weston was subject to a 6-month suspended sentence when he hit Gloucester city centre on his latest thieving spree.

Prior to the hearing he had 12 previous convictions for 38 offences, including burglary, shop theft and breaching orders imposed by the court.

Alexis Brown, prosecuting, outlined the circumstances of the offences, which took place between 22nd November 2020 and 18th January 2021.

"Weston and his partner would enter a chosen store, select a number of goods and leave the stores without making any attempt to pay", said Ms Brown.

"The items stolen include chocolate, jeans and other items of clothing, joints of meat and beauty products.

"It was only when he asked to contact his partner that the police realised who she was and that he had given the officer a false name."

On a single day, 7th December 2021, the thief entered Home Bargains and stole £96 worth of chocolate, before heading to Marks and Spencer and emptying a rail containing £395 worth of jeans.

In total he took more than £800 worth of goods from various stores across the city.

Ms Brown asked the bench to consider imposing a new Criminal Behaviour Order (CBO) on Weston, which would ban him from entering retail premises in Gloucestershire.

Lee Mott, mitigating, made no objection to the imposition of a CBO.

He told the court: "Weston goes on spates of shoplifting when he is short of money. He doesn't struggle with addiction, but struggles with his finances. When he finds himself at rock bottom he resorts to shoplifting.

"If Weston is not sentenced to a custodial term today, he has a job waiting for him for a company he has previously worked for. This will put the motivation for his offending behind him being in employment."

Magistrates decided the offences in totality were so serious that only a custodial sentence was appropriate. They also decided to activate his suspended sentence.

Sally Ward, Presiding Justice, said: "We feel that you have failed to put into practice what you learned while you were with probation and reoffended again very soon after the suspended sentence order was made."

Weston was sentenced to 4 months' custody for the new offences, to run consecutively with 3 months' custody from the activation of his suspended sentence.

He was ordered to pay Marks and Spencer £395 in compensation.

Magistrates also made a CBO banning Weston from retail premises, other than a nominated convenience store and pharmacy, across Gloucestershire for a period of three years.

Devon & Cornwall Police Officers Dismissed for Gross Misconduct

An independent misconduct panel has determined that two police officers gave false evidence in order to secure the conviction of a man they apparently took a dislike to.

PC 17273 Kenneth Anscombe and PC 11380 Daniel Care, formerly of Devon and Cornwall Police, responded to an incident in Penzance on 18th October 2019, where they arrested a man for being drunk and disorderly in a public place.

The man was subsequently convicted at the Magistrates' Court, but successfully appealed the conviction when he was able to produce video footage directly contradicting the evidence provided by both officers in their written statements.

Alarmingly, PC Anscombe had attended the Magistrates' Court and reiterated, on oath, the false account provided in his written statement.

A misconduct panel, chaired by barrister David Sapiecha, took place at Devon and Cornwall Police HQ in Exeter between 7th and 11th December 2020. The panel found the pair guilty of gross misconduct and ordered their immediate dismissal.

The outcome of that five-day hearing, as summarised in a recent IOPC statement, was as follows: "At the end of the five-day hearing the panel concluded that both officers' evidential statements contained false information and were in order to secure a conviction.

"The statements alleged the man had been aggressive straight away and uttered specific swear words at the officers when later evidence did not show that.

"PC Anscombe then gave evidence on oath at a Magistrates’ Court hearing, at which the man was convicted, which was consistent with the false information in his statement."

It will come as little surprise, given some earlier articles on the Magistrates' Blog, that I take a particularly dim view of police officers who are proven to act dishonestly or unlawfully.

When they assume their appointment they swear an oath to act with "fairness, integrity, diligence and impartiality" and to "uphold fundamental human rights and accord equal respect to all people, according to law".

Framing an innocent man for an offence he did not commit is about as far detached from the principles of that oath as it is possible to stray. The public quite rightly expects police officers to approach their duties with the highest degree of honesty and integrity. These two officers have reneged on that fundamental obligation; they have broken their contract with the public; they are the absolute pits - an utter disgrace, the pair of them.

It therefore comes as a disappointment to learn that the CPS, having considered a file of evidence in relation to this whole sorry incident, has decided not to pursue criminal charges against the pair.

What sort of a message does it send to the public, that police officers can tell fairy tales to the court and escape criminal consequence?

It doesn't do anything to uphold public confidence in the criminal justice system or rule of law, that's for sure.

Sticky Situation Lands Extinction Rebellion Activist Behind Bars

An Extinction Rebellion activist has been jailed for contempt of court after gluing himself to the dock and livestreaming the ensuing disruption on social media.

Arainn Hawker, 49, of Thorney, Somerset, was appearing for trial at City of London Magistrates' Court on Thursday, 4th February 2021 when the incident took place.

Contempt of court in the Magistrates' Court has a maximum penalty of one months' custody and/or a fine at level 4 (currently £2,500). We have previously written an article about misbehaviour in the Magistrates' Court, which some readers may find of interest.

Hawker, who had denied a charge of wilfully obstructing the highway, was somehow able to produce a tube of glue and adhere his own hand to the glass frontage of the secure dock. Furthermore, he was able to use a mobile phone to broadcast the shenanigans over the internet.

Speaking during the livestream, Hawker said: "The courts are in contempt of human rights and civil justice.

"I believe the courts have completely failed to come up with an adequate response to the climate and ecological emergency from the Magistrates not accepting the legal defence of necessity right through to the CPS prosecuting."

According to Extinction Rebellion's Riz Choudhury, who was also present in the courtroom, it took around 30 minutes to free Hawker from the glass panel.

The trial did eventually reach its conclusion, with Hawker convicted of wilfully obstructing the highway during an Oxford Circus protest in October 2019.

He was handed a nine-month conditional discharge for that offence.

Additionally, Deputy District Judge Stuart Miller jailed him for seven days for contempt of court.

Sweet-Toothed Cheshire Shop Thief Jailed for Breaching CBO

A sweet-toothed Cheshire shop thief has been jailed for breaching his criminal behaviour order (CBO).

Colin Richard Poole, 39, of no fixed abode but from Widnes, admitted three charges of shop theft and another of breaching his CBO when he appeared via videolink at Warrington Magistrates' Court on Monday, 1st February, 2021.

We have previously written a guide on CBOs, which readers may find of interest.

Magistrates heard that the cocky thief, who has lengthy form for stealing meat and chocolate from shops in Widnes, had been handed a CBO only days before he went out on his latest thieving spree.

Poole entered the Co-op on Hale Road, Widnes twice on Friday, 29th January 2021 and was witnessed stealing chocolate to the value of £180. By entering the Co-op he was also in breach of his CBO.

On Saturday, 30th January 2021 he entered a convenience store in the Fir Park area of Widnes and stole meat to the value of £101.

Considering the offences in totality, along with Poole's flagrant disregard for court orders, Magistrates determined that his crimes were so serious that only a custodial sentence was appropriate.

Poole was sentenced to 24 weeks' custody and ordered to pay £281 in compensation to the affected businesses.

Cheshire Police's Chief Inspector Ian Whiley said: "The coronavirus pandemic has had a significant financial impact on shops, and the last thing that convenience stores in Widnes need is to be targeted by a persistent shoplifter like Colin Poole.

"He was swiftly made to face the consequences of his actions, and is now doing so behind bars.

"Those who continue to breach the terms of a CBO will continue to be sent to prison.

"The sanctions imposed for doing so can be severe, with the maximum penalty being five years behind bars."

Sadly it would appear that prison is no deterrent to Poole's offending.

Disorderly Behaviour: Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986

"Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me" goes the popular nursery rhyme.

In common with most people, I was taught that saying at a very early age and it has stuck with me ever since.

Nowadays I tend not to get called that many names. I'm a very mild-mannered person and not easily flustered. In the rare instances that I do receive any sort of verbal abuse, I just let it glide over my head and don't take it to heart.

I have always subscribed to the belief that if someone resorts to being abusive, then it says a lot more about their character than it does my own.

Not everyone is as fortunate as I am. Some people are subjected to outrageous threats and abuse, which simply can't be ignored and nor should they be. Legislation exists to hold to account anyone meting out such disorderly behaviour.

In today's article we are going to explore the criminal offence of disorderly behaviour.

We give the customary disclaimer that we cannot possibly cover every single angle of the offence, but hope to cover the most pertinent points. As always, we'd invited readers to consult the references mentioned below if they require any further information.

Disorderly behaviour is an offence contrary to section 5(1) of the Public Order Act 1986, which states:

"A person is guilty of an offence if he-

(a) uses threatening or abusive words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or;

(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening or abusive

within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be causes harassment, alarm or distress thereby."

Section 5(2) of the Act states that the offence can be committed in either a public or private place, except that no offence is committed when the behaviour (either verbal or visual) is displayed by a person in a private dwelling to another person inside that or another private dwelling.

Section 5(3) sets out the statutory defences for disorderly behaviour. There are three possible defences available to a person charged with the offence:

(a) that he had no reason to believe that there was any person within hearing or sight who was likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress, or;

(b) that he was inside a dwelling and had no reason to believe that the words or behaviour used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation displayed, would be heard or seen by a person outside that or any other dwelling, or;

(c) that his conduct was reasonable.

Section 5(6) of the Act sets the maximum penalty on summary conviction as a fine at level 3 (currently £1,000).

Section 6(4) of the Act sets out the mens rea of disorderly behaviour in the following terms:

"A person is guilty of an offence under section 5 only if he intends his words or behaviour or the writing, sign or other visible representation, to be threatening or abusive, or is aware that it may be threatening or abusive or (as the case may be) he intends his behaviour to be or may be aware that it may be disorderly."

Considering section 5(1) of the Act in closer detail, it can be seen that there are two main elements of the offence:

that the defendant used threatening or abusive words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour; or that they displayed any writing, sign or visible representation which is threatening or abusive;

that there was a person within hearing or sight who was likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress as a result.

As you will undoubtedly have noticed, these broad brushstrokes give rise to wide and varied interpretation of what actually constitutes an offence. The CPS provides some useful guidance on possible acts of disorderly behaviour, but it is by no means exhaustive.

Whether or not behaviour is disorderly is entirely a matter for the court (Chambers and Edwards v DPP [1995] Crim LR 896).

Disorderly behaviour does not require any element of violence, actual or threatened. It includes conduct that is not necessarily threatening or abusive. It is not necessary to prove any feeling of insecurity, in an apprehensive sense, on the part of a member of the public.

It has been established (Holloway v DPP [2004] EWHC 2621 (Admin)) that an offence is only committed if a person is actually within sight of the alleged disorderly behaviour, not merely that they might have been.

It is not, however, necessary to prove that the person did actually see the disorderly behaviour or experience harassment, alarm or distress as a result. It is sufficient that they were likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress.

Case law (DPP v Orum [1988] Crim LR 848) has established that a police officer can be likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress for the purposes of an offence. Whether the police officer was likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress is a matter for the court to determine on the facts before it. We have previously written about one such case.

The High Court has ruled (Abdul v DPP [2011] EWHC 247 (Admin)) that an individual's right to freedom of expression under article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights does not preclude them from committing an offence under section 5(1) of the Act. This means protestors voicing their opinions can still be convicted of disorderly behaviour.

In common with every other offence, prosecutions for disorderly behaviour should only occur where both the evidential and public interests are met, but you do have to wonder about the merits of some cases coming before the court (see our earlier article for one such case).

To be blunt, some of these cases are akin to schoolyard squabbles that would be better resolved out of court.