Worcestershire Farmer Summoned Over Alternative Village Sign

A Worcestershire farmer stands accused of a public order offence after erecting a sign critical of the local community.

Carl Powell, 75, of Stone Arrow Farm, Peopleton, erected the sign on a 15-foot tall disused grain dryer after villagers objected to plans to install a new path on the 100 acre property. The application was subsequently refused by Worcestershire County Council.

The sign reads as follows: "Welcome to Peopleton; a murderous, lawless, godforsaken place; probably, most definitely, the nastiest village in Worcestershire."

Gosh. Strong stuff indeed. I think I've seen worse scrawled on the parish noticeboard.

If newspaper reports are to be believed, West Mercia Police has previously issued a penalty notice for disorder in relation to the sign, which Mr Powell has refused to pay.

The police have now decided to escalate matters by charging Mr Powell with an offence under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 - namely that he has displayed a sign that is threatening or abusive within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.

We give a detailed account of this legislation in an earlier article. It's probably also worth mentioning that this will be a police led prosecution.

Mr Powell has been summoned to appear at Worcester Magistrates' Court on 1st July 2021.

Speaking to The Sun, he said: "They can drag me to court but I will fight my corner.

"I will plead not guilty. I won't remove the sign unless I'm forced to - it's fair speech.

"We're not living in Nazi Germany. I've done absolutely nothing wrong.

"It's like being in a police state."

Mr Powell, a man of previous good character, has also been instructed to attend the police station to provide his fingerprints and DNA prior to the court hearing. He has so far refused to do so.

As this could possibly go to trial we shan't comment any further, other than to quote something from our earlier article on section 5: "You do have to wonder about the merits of some cases coming before the court."

Update (3/10/21): Read the final gripping instalment in this case.

Birmingham Taxi Driver Loses Appeal Against Licence Revocation

A Birmingham taxi driver has lost an appeal to regain his private hire licence after the council revoked it.

Adeel Javed, 38, of William Street, Brierley Hill, Dudley, was stripped of his licence after being the subject of more than two-dozen complaints since he took up the role in 2015.

The Uber driver attended Birmingham Magistrates' Court on Thursday, 17th June 2021, to appeal Birmingham City Council's decision.

The relevant legislation pertaining to the revocation of taxi licences and appeals thereof is section 61 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976.

The straw that broke the camel's back was a complaint from a customer that Mr Javed had charged £12 for a journey of just over one mile in Birmingham city centre.

Matthew Cullen, acting for Birmingham City Council, said "The complainant described him charging an extortionate price of £12 from Broad Street to New Street station. He was not pre-booked and simply flagged the taxi down. Private hire drivers cannot accept unbooked journeys. It is a criminal offence."

Mr Javed denied the incident when he was quizzed by council officers, saying that he had been heading to the National Indoor Arena to collect friends. He said that the complainant had approached the taxi, but he had refused the fare. According to Mr Javed, this had annoyed the complainant, who responded by taking a photo of the taxi and making a vexatious complaint.

Mr Cullen disputed Mr Javed's account, saying that ANPR had recorded the taxi leaving the city centre 15 minutes before he claimed to have collected his friends.

The court heard details of some of the other complaints, although it is not clear to what extend these have been investigated or substantiated:

• October 2015: Speaking on his phone in Bengali whilst driving (presumably using a hand-held mobile);
• April 2016: Sending pictures of cars to people during a journey;
• September 2017: Not moving for a police vehicle with flashing blue lights; making a derogatory comment to a female passenger; checking sports results on his mobile phone (presumably when driving);
• June 2018: Driving dangerously, swerving and performing an emergency stop in front of another motorist who had "cut him up" before getting out and grabbing him by the throat;
• July 2019: Asking passengers to pay £40 in cash for a journey;
• July 2020: Not wearing a face covering and telling passengers the guidance had changed that day;
• December 2020: Charging a passenger extra for taking a different route when an ambulance blocked the road;
• March 2021: Refusing a booking on arrival due to the customers' ethnicity.

Mr Javed refuted those complaints, saying: "Passengers try to get refunds and money from Uber.

"With social media, when someone gets money back they say 'do this and get your money back'. They are just trying to get refunds.

"Friends talk to each other. They will say 'I have a free ride, you can have a free ride if you say this'."

Magistrates' rejected Mr Javed's appeal.

The Presiding Justice said: "We believe the decision by the council was the correct one.

"The information we heard from Birmingham City Council about the ANPR check and the Uber statement is credible. Your explanation, we didn't find credible.

"We have heard further information from your employer listing 25 complaints from your customers. Some are very serious. Your response is they are all making it up to get refunds.

"The complainants are not connected to one another. We find it not credible they are all making a complaint so they can all have a refund.

"A taxi driver's role has a specific requirement much higher than other public services. Birmingham City Council's decision that you are not a fit and proper person was correct on the balance of probabilities.

"The evidence heard today strengthened this decision."

In a statement, Uber said that the accounts of any taxi driver that lost their licence would be deleted and they would no longer be able to accept work via the app.

The company added: "Uber takes all complaints made against drivers and riders very seriously, and we have a robust investigation process."

It is believed that Mr Javed still holds a private hire licence issued by Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council.

Staffordshire Dog Thief Jailed

A Staffordshire man has been jailed for stealing two black Labradors that were momentarily left outside a shop by their owner.

Malachy Doherty, 37, of McKinley Street, Tunstall, admitted charges of theft and failing to surrender to custody when he appeared previously at South Cheshire Magistrates' Court.

He was sentenced by the same court on Tuesday, 8th June 2021.

His accomplice, a 14-year-old boy, was convicted of theft in his absence when he failed to attend for trial. A warrant has been issued for the boy's arrest.

Theft is an either way offence contrary to section 1 of the Theft Act 1968. The maximum penalty for theft is 7 years in custody. We have previously written an article on the legalities surrounding theft.

Bernice Campbell, prosecuting, outlined the circumstances of the theft.

Local man Dale Robson had been walking the dogs, Denzel and Welly, in Nantwich town centre on the evening of Saturday, 27th March 2021.

He tied the dogs outside Marks and Spencer when he briefly nipped inside to make a purchase. Only a few minutes later he returned to find them missing.

Staff at the store alerted the police. A review of CCTV showed two individuals untying and running off with the dogs.

Shortly after the dogs were taken, the 14-year-old texted someone he knew and offered two black Labradors for sale.

It transpired that Robson had passed the dogs to his wife, Mary Doherty, 28, and asked her to take them home. She has admitted a charge of handling stolen goods and awaits sentencing on that matter.

In the hours after Denzel and Welly were taken their frantic owners searched the local area, but to no avail. A social media campaign also got underway, which resulted in the police receiving a tip off about the location of the dogs - Mary Doherty's property - three days later.

The dogs were recovered and returned to their very appreciative and relieved owners.

Mr Robson's victim personal statement was read to the court.

In it he said: "I cannot believe that someone can be so heartless as to steal two dogs who are members of the family."

Colin Drew, mitigating for the Dohertys, said they had experienced a torrent of social media abuse since they were linked with the theft of the dogs.

Malachy Doherty has even tried to take his own life, the solicitor said.

"He has been very, very emotionally disturbed in relation to this," Mr Drew told the court.

"The dogs were returned in good condition. Mary Doherty was looking after them well - maybe too well. It appears one of the dogs had put on a bit of weight. They were both being walked and fed."

District Judge Nick Sanders, sentencing, described dog napping as an "abominable offence".

He said: "This is not theft of a push bike. It's the theft of two family pets. I cannot begin to imagine the distress you caused that family."

Malachy Doherty was sentenced to 26 weeks' custody for theft, to be served consecutively with one weeks' custody for failing to surrender.

He was also ordered to pay £1,000 in compensation, £930 towards prosecution costs and £128 victim surcharge.

I am in total agreement with the Judge that this is the most horrendous of crimes.

Dogs are not just possessions - they are irreplaceable, much loved members of the family. You simply cannot put a monetary value on a sentient being that has such a strong, emotional bond to its master and family.

The view that the theft of dogs is comparable to the theft of property is totally misguided. I would be in full agreement with any future legislation that recognises the important status of pet dogs.

Wiltshire MP Fined After Puppy Chased Deer in Royal Park

A Wiltshire Member of Parliament has been fined after his puppy caused a stampede of deer in Richmond Park.

Daniel Rayne Kruger, 46, of Hammersmith, London, admitted causing or permitting an animal to chase or worry another animal in a Royal Park.

This is an offence contrary to section 4(21) of the Royal Parks and Other Open Spaces Regulations 1997.

Kruger, the son of celebrity chef Prue Leith, has been the Conservative MP for Devizes since December 2019. He appeared at Westminster Magistrates' Court on Monday, 7th June 2021.

Dominic Hockley, prosecuting, outlined the circumstances: "On 20th March this year, Danny Kruger's white Jack Russell dog, Pebble, chased a large herd of fallow deer.

"It's been said it only takes one pebble to start an avalanche. In this case it only took one Pebble to start a stampede."

The court heard that PC Samantha Riggs saw Pebble running towards a heard of around 200 deer, many of which were pregnant at the time.

The presence of the dog caused the deer to get into a "panicked state". PC Riggs called out for the owner, who was "at that point, nowhere to be seen".

Video footage of the incident shows the MP repeatedly calling out for Pebble, before putting him on a lead.

Kruger, who had been walking with his family, was apologetic after the incident, telling the police: "I'm sorry, I had no idea, I didn't see the deer. Anyway, obviously he needs to be on a lead."

Jae Carwardine, mitigating, said Kruger's attention had been momentarily drawn towards his 7-year-old son, who was tired after walking for two hours.

"This was a brief lapse while juggling his responsibilities as a parent, quite understandable, but something Mr Kruger deeply regrets," she said.

"Of course, he will take much greater care in the future."

Ms Carwardine described Kruger as an "avid dog walker", while Pebble was said to be a "very friendly, good-natured family pet who interacts well with other animals".

"Mr Kruger takes dog training and dog obedience seriously. He has trained Pebble and he has been effective in that training," she said.

"He of course takes responsibility for the temporary loss of control of his dog."

District Judge Tan Ikram, the Deputy Chief Magistrate, told Kruger: "The video says it all really, doesn't it?

"You should have known better, especially in Richmond Park, where everyone knows there are wild deer.

"Your dog was not under control, he was able to frighten the deer and here you are in court today.

"The deer were clearly startled and frightened. It could have caused injury, fortunately it didn't."

Kruger was fined £120 and ordered to pay £34 victim surcharge and £575 towards prosecution costs.

Oxfordshire YouTuber Convicted of Filming in Magistrates' Court

A YouTuber has been convicted of taking photographs at Wellingborough Justice Centre.

Reda Bouadi-Clifton, 43, of Woodhall Drive, Banbury, admitted a charge of taking a photograph in court when he appeared at Northampton Magistrates' Court on Thursday, 27th May 2021.

This is an offence under section 41 of the Criminal Justice Act 1925.

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.

Magistrates heard that minicab driver Bouadi-Clifton was at Wellingborough Justice Centre on the morning of Tuesday, 27th April 2021. He was filming content for his YouTube channel, Auditing Britain. The Midland Road venue handles Adult Criminal and Family work.

Court staff challenged Bouadi-Clifton, but he refused to stop filming or leave the court precincts. The police were called and he was arrested.

Bouadi-Clifton was fined £100 and ordered to pay £85 towards prosecution costs and £34 victim surcharge.

The court also made a deprivation order in respect of his mobile phone, which he had used to record the footage in question.

A case like this would barely register, had it not been for our previous article about the powers available to deal with misbehaviour in court.

It should also be noted that this genre of YouTuber - who ply their trade by uploading intrusive footage to the discomfort of other people - absolutely loathe it when roles are reversed and they are under the media spotlight!