Walter Mitty Paralegal Pretended to be Barrister

A Walter Mitty paralegal has been convicted of pretending to be a barrister when she represented a client in the Magistrates' Court.

Clorissa Paynter, 31, of Elmley Street, Woolwich, London, admitted performing a reserved legal activity when she was not entitled to do so when she appeared at Oxford Magistrates' Court on Tuesday, 30th September 2021.

This is an offence under section 14 of the Legal Services Act 2007. The maximum penalty for this offence is 6 months' custody and/or an unlimited fine on summary conviction; 2 years' custody and/or an unlimited fine on conviction on indictment.

Magistrates heard that Paynter represented a paying client at Slough Magistrates' Court on Thursday, 25th March 2021.

She introduced herself as counsel, thereby implying that she was a qualified barrister with rights of audience. In fact, she was a paralegal working for a probate firm and had no such rights of audience.

Her client admitted drug driving, so the job of mitigation fell to Paynter.

Prosecutor Clare Barclay described what happened when Paynter and her client arrived at court.

Ms Barclay said: "She arrived with him, identified herself as counsel to security and an usher and, when called, the legal adviser asked her to identify her instructing solicitor and Ms Paynter said she was acting privately and confirmed she was under the direct access scheme.

"Evidently, Ms Paynter mitigated rather poorly from the defence lawyer's bench, which aroused suspicion [from] the prosecutor and the legal adviser."

Paynter was brought back before the court when enquiries revealed that she was not actually a barrister. At that stage she admitted being a paralegal.

David Hicks, mitigating, said that Paynter's actions had not come "from a bad place". She had been hired by the client and put considerable work into his case, which she wanted to see through to completion.

The "criminality in the case", Mr Hicks said, was Paynter wrongly telling court staff that she was a direct access barrister.

"In a police interview she realised at that point, having been put on the spot she answered incorrectly," Mr Hicks said.

"Nobody has lost out financially in respect of this matter and the person she was representing has not been misled, which in my submission would be the most serious part of this offence."

Mr Hicks said that his client had lost her job with the probate firm and was now working at an estate agency. She was a single mother of two children and of previous good character.

Paynter was fined £369 and ordered to pay £85 towards prosecution costs and £37 victim surcharge.

Yvette Hutchinson JP, Presiding Justice, told her: "You now leave with a conviction for this offence."

In accordance with section 13 of the Act only an authorised or exempt person has rights of audience before the court.

An authorised person is one holding a professional legal qualification such as a barrister or solicitor; an exempt person is one who requests and is granted rights of audience by the court on a particular occasion.

Katie Price Admits Drink Driving Whilst Disqualified

Former glamour model turned TV personality Katie Price was under the influence of both drink and drugs when she piled her car on Tuesday morning.

Price, 43, of Horsham, West Sussex, admitted charges of driving whilst unfit through drink, driving whilst disqualified and driving without insurance when she appeared in custody at Crawley Magistrates' Court this morning, 29th September 2021.

Magistrates heard that Price lost control of her black BMW on the B2135 near to Partridge Green, West Sussex, early on Tuesday morning. 

She flipped the vehicle onto its side by over-correcting the steering.

Police attended the scene and required Price to provide a roadside specimen of breath and drug swipe. Having failed the roadside test, Price was arrested and further breathalysed on an evidential machine, which confirmed a reading of 66 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath - almost twice the legal limit of 35 microgrammes.

Prosecutor Debbie Jones confirmed that the drug swipe also tested positive, although the Crown was content to accept Price's admission in relation to the drink drive offence only.

Joe Harrington, mitigating, explained that Price was facing a series of "personal problems", including bankruptcy proceedings which could result in the loss of her home. The crash, he said, was a "one-off" incident - a curious observation given Price's previous convictions for related offences.

He added: "As I understand it she had been drinking, she was lonely and she decided to go and see a friend who lived a relatively short distance away and that is when the incident happened."

Julie Hutton JP, Presiding Justice, deferred sentencing until Wednesday, 15th December 2021, on the condition that Price undergoes treatment for her substance misuse at the Priory Centre.

She also ordered pre-sentence reports, warning Price that all options, including custody, remained on the table.

Price was granted unconditional bail until her next hearing. She emerged from court concealed under a blanket, to be driven away by her father.

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 to be hoped, for her sake, that Price really makes a go of her treatment at the Priory and engages fully with the Probation Service.

The court rightly takes a dim view of motorists who disregard its orders by driving when disqualified - even more so when they are tanked up, repeat offenders who show cavalier disregard for the safety of other road users.

Portsmouth Doctor Admits £1m Fraud

A Portsmouth doctor defrauded a healthcare alliance of more than £1 million.

Rumi Chhapia, 45, of Lennox Road North, Southsea, admitted one charge of fraud by abuse of position when he appeared at Portsmouth Magistrates' Court on Wednesday, 22nd September 2021.

Fraud by abuse of position is an offence under section 4 of the Fraud Act 2006. It has a maximum penalty of 26 weeks' custody and/or an unlimited fine on summary conviction; 10 years' custody and/or an unlimited fine on conviction on indictment.

Magistrates heard that Chhapia, formerly a GP with the city's Portsdown Group Practice, was a director of Portsmouth Primary Care Alliance Limited - a group of 16 general practices providing out-of-hours care in the Portsmouth area.

He was left in sole charge of the company's finances when a fellow director was signed off sick last summer.

Between August and September 2020, Chhapia siphoned more than £1 million from the company's accounts.

Lucy Linington, prosecuting, said: "In a 41-day period this defendant has embezzled £1,133,704.50.

"I understand that £230,000 has been repaid by this defendant but that leaves the astonishing amount of £903,704.50 outstanding to the Portsmouth Primary Care Alliance Limited.

"The abuse of trust in this case is significant because this defendant was a director at the time.

"Primarily, you have a significant amount of money that has been embezzled by this defendant.

"It won't surprise you to learn that the Crown would say this matter should be submitted to the Crown Court."

Magistrates agreed that the likely sentence was outwith their sentencing powers.

Ryan Rutlidge JP, Presiding Justice, told Chhapia: "You have heard what's been said today. We are committing you to Portsmouth Crown Court because this matter is so serious that we feel you need even greater punishment than we can give."

Magistrates ordered the preparation of a pre-sentence report and granted Chhapia unconditional bail until his sentencing hearing on 22nd October 2021.

Update (6/11/21): Chhapia has now been sentenced. 

Wiltshire Woman Convicted of Threatening Journalist Over Online News Article

A Wiltshire woman has been convicted of threatening a journalist who refused to remove an online news article reporting the crimes of a relative.

Stacey Reader, 27, of Albany Close, Swindon, admitted an offence under section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988 when she appeared at Swindon Magistrates' Court on Tuesday, 14th September 2021.

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

Reader had initially been arrested on suspicion of blackmailing journalist Daniel Jae Webb, but the Crown Prosecution Service decided to pursue a lesser charge under the 1988 Act.

The court heard that Reader, who clearly doesn't understand the Streisand effect, had approached Mr Webb in relation to an article he had written about her relative Connor Deeks.

She asked him to remove the article, but when he refused she made threats against him.

District Judge Joanna Dickens adjourned sentencing pending the completion of a pre-sentence report.

Speaking of the conviction, Mr Webb said: "I hope this conviction sends a strong message to people who think it is acceptable to threaten or abuse journalists working to keep their communities informed, especially through the reporting of court hearings.

"You tend to develop a thick skin working in the news industry and turn a blind eye to most of the abuse you receive, but some incidents are so serious that they cannot be ignored.

"It is really important to remember that journalists are human too - with a life outside the news, a family and friends.

"This kind of abuse not only affects the person it's aimed at, but everyone close to them."

Journalists perform an absolutely crucial role in keeping their communities informed of the inner workings of the judicial process. I am a strong proponent of their right to report and the public's right to know.

I am also a strong opponent of attempts to suppress the reporting of cases that have been heard in public. Quite simply, bar the most exceptional of circumstances, convicted criminals do not have any entitlement to anonymity.

Any convicted criminal shy about having their details published by the media should have considered that beforehand.

Northumberland Man Assaulted Takeaway Boss in Kebab Rage Incident

A Northumberland man flew into a drunken rage and assaulted a takeaway owner because he was dissatisfied with the food he was served.

Paul Kelly, 43, of Hexham, admitted one charge of assault by beating when he appeared at Newcastle Magistrates' Court on Friday, 17th September 2021.

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

Magistrates heard that Kelly, who has previous convictions for offences against the person, purchased a kebab from Hexham Pizza on the evening of Wednesday, 7th July 2021.

He returned to the shop shortly after 11 pm to complain about the standard of the food.

Omar Ahmad, prosecuting, said: "The defendant was swearing and being aggressive. The victim says the defendant picked up a kebab box and threw it at him, hitting him in the face and causing immediate pain to his right eye.

"He offered the defendant his money back and gave the money to him, which included coins.

"The defendant threw the money back at him, which hit him."

Kelly remained in the shop for several more minutes, shouting and swearing before he left the premises.

A victim personal statement by the takeaway owner, which was read to the court, said: "This incident made me feel scared because I try to be nice to everyone I meet.

"This male was so aggressive to me then assaulted me, even when I tried to give him his money back."

Kelly appeared in court unrepresented.

He said: "It was totally my fault - it was a disgrace. I'd had a few drinks and was not happy with the food I'd got.

"It was not just one-sided. I wanted to apologise to the owner of the shop but I got told not to."

Magistrates ordered Kelly to pay £150 in compensation to the owner of the takeaway.

No further details are provided about sentencing, so it may have been a standalone compensation order (in which case no surcharge would be due).

Isle of Wight Man Admits Breaching Sexual Risk Order

An Isle of Wight man has been convicted of breaching his Sexual Risk Order (SRO) by sending bizarre photographs and inappropriate messages to a teenage girl.

Harry Simmonds, 22, of Harvey Close, East Cowes, admitted two charges of breaching an SRO when he appeared at Isle of Wight Magistrates' Court on Friday, 17th September 2021.

Breach of an SRO is an offence under section 122H of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. The maximum penalty for this offence is 6 months' custody and/or an unlimited fine on summary conviction; 5 years' custody on conviction on indictment.

Simmonds, who goes by the nickname "Baby Harry" owing to his unconventional tendency dress up as a baby, was made subject to the order by Portsmouth Magistrates' Court in December last year.

The order was made following a string of previous convictions for grooming and sending inappropriate images of a sexual nature to children and young people. It prohibited him from living with anyone under the age of 18 or engaging in sexual communication with anyone under the age of 18.

Magistrates heard that Simmonds breached the order by contacting the 16-year-old complainant between 24th February and 1st March 2021.

Via the medium of SnapChat he asked the girl about her boyfriend and sent her an image of himself wearing a nappy and holding a sign saying "I'm a pedo".

The girl reported the matter to the police, who arrested and interviewed Simmonds about the matter.

No sooner had he been released, than he was sending her further SnapChat messages under a pseudonym, including one saying "I'm going to rape you".

Charles Nightingale, prosecuting, told the court: "The Crown says this person presents a current and ongoing risk to young persons and the Crown says there are persistent and deliberate breaches of the order.

"This caused concern, alarm and distress to this young woman."

Mr Nightingale said in his opinion the Magistrates' sentencing powers were insufficient to deal with the offences at hand.

Oscar Vincent, mitigating, told the court that there were no definitive sentencing guidelines available for breaching an SRO, but the case was comparable to breaching a Sexual Harm Prevention Order.

He asked the court to grant bail to his client, but Magistrates refused saying he was "incapable of complying with bail conditions" and no conditions could be imposed that would allay their concerns about his further offending.

Simmonds was remanded in custody until his sentencing hearing at Isle of Wight Crown Court.

Fly-Tipping: A Case Study

According to the latest available official statistics, local authorities in England dealt with 976,000 instances of fly-tipping in 2019-20.

That was an increase of 2 percent on the previous year, when there were 957,000 reported instances of fly-tipping.

Household waste accounted for just under two-thirds of all fly-tipped waste in 2019-20, which was an increase of around 7 percent on the previous year.

More than two-fifths of fly-tipped waste was deposited on highways and the prevalence of fly-tipping, per 1,000 head of population, was almost twice as high in London as it was anywhere else in England.

In addition to being unsightly and unhygienic, fly-tipping is a costly problem to fix. Industry body The National Fly-tipping Prevention Group (NFTPG) estimates the annual cost of clearing fly-tips, which has to be borne by either the public purse or the private landowner, could be as much as £186 million.

The legislation:

In England and Wales it is an offence under section 33(1)(a) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to deposit, or knowingly cause or permit controlled waste to be deposited on any land unless authorised by a valid environmental permit.

Furthermore, section 34 of the Act imposes an obligation on an individual or business to ensure that their waste is disposed of properly by a registered waste carrier.

The maximum penalty for an offence under section 33 is 6 months' custody and/or an unlimited fine on summary conviction; 5 years' custody and/or an unlimited fine on conviction on indictment.

The maximum penalty for an offence under section 34 is an unlimited fine on summary conviction or conviction on indictment.

Regulations are in force that allow either of these offences to be dealt with by means of a fixed penalty notice, but that is usually reserved for smaller scale instances of fly-tipping.

Those offences involving larger scale fly-tips or where the fixed penalty goes unpaid, ignored or contested invariably end up before the court.

The case of Smith vs. Bruddlesford City Council:

Mr Smith, who had recently moved to the UK from Poland, had opened a barbers shop in the suburbs of Bruddlesford. As well of tending to the personal grooming needs of customers, the shop became a bit of a hub for the local community.

Things were going well and Mr Smith had taken on several members of staff to cope with his growing customer base. Keen to improve facilities for his customers, Mr Smith invested a lot of time and money redecorating and refurbishing the shop.

He was in conversation with a customer and happened to mention that he had accumulated waste building materials in the backyard. The customer said he had a van and would dispose of the waste for £50, which Mr Smith thought was a good deal and accepted.

A few days later Bruddlesford City Council received a report of fly-tipping in a back alley. Council officers attended the scene and found business documents linking the waste back to the premises of Mr Smith. The council had a zero tolerance approach to fly-tipping and decided to prosecute Mr Smith for an offence under section 34 of the Act.

Mr Smith admitted the offence from the outset.

The prosecution case:

Waste found in the back lane had been illegally deposited there. Mr Smith had not taken reasonable measures to ensure that the customer he paid to remove the waste was a registered waste carrier. Mr Smith had therefore failed in his duty under section 34 of the Act.

The council requested £400 prosecution costs, which included the £200 cost of removing the waste.

Mitigation:

For his part, Mr Smith acknowledged he had not made adequate enquiries about whether the man he paid to remove the waste was a registered waste carrier. 

As a fairly recent arrival to the UK, he said he did not realise what the rules were. He was remorseful and now understood the problems that can arise when you try to get a job done on the cheap.

He told the court that his business was making a profit of around £1,000 a week.

The sentence of the court:

The court was of the view that Mr Smith had made an honest mistake without malice aforethought.

For all ignorance of the legislation is no defence, the court had some sympathy towards Mr Smith's predicament as a new arrival in the UK, someone unfamiliar with the rules and a non-native speaker of English.

Magistrates were satisfied as to Mr Smith's level of honesty and contrition. He was clearly working hard, making a success of his business and making a positive contribution to the community.

They decided that the most appropriate course of action would be to impose a 6-month conditional discharge, with £400 prosecution costs and £40 victim surcharge.

CBO for Norwich Animal Rights Activist Who Targeted Butchers

A Norwich woman has been handed a Criminal Behaviour Order (CBO) banning her from approaching several Norfolk butchers' shops.

Gemma Barnes, 30, of Dover Street, Norwich, was earlier convicted of four offences of criminal damage dating back to May 2020.

The first offence, which took place between 15th-17th May 2020, was at The Village Butcher, Church Street, Litcham; the second took place on 7th October 2020 at Fiddy's Butchers, Aylsham Road, Norwich; the third took place between 7th-8th October 2020 at Hayley's Big Baps, Aylsham Road, Norwich; the fourth took place between 9th-10th October 2020 at Hazel's Butchers, Corbet Avenue, Norwich.

Barnes, an animal rights activist, vandalised shop fronts and vehicles belonging to the businesses concerned. A selection of her handiwork is shown in the accompanying images, which were posted on the media section of the Animal Liberation Front website.

As a result of her conviction, Norfolk Police successfully applied to the court for an order prohibiting Barnes from approaching within 5 metres any of the business premises concerned. The order was granted for a period of two years.

The legislation surrounding Criminal Behaviour Orders was outlined in an earlier article.

One of the business owners targeted by Barnes, butcher Graham Fiddy, arrived at his shop to find the word "murderer" daubed across the front and windows smashed.

Speaking to the Eastern Daily Press, Mr Fiddy said: "I welcome (the order) as long as it keeps her away from meat premises.

"If she is going to keep causing trouble to butcher's life that is why they've got to do it.

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but there's a way of going about it."

Indeed.

Teesside Man Convicted of Sexually Assaulting Two Women in Same Week

A Teesside man has been convicted of sexually assaulting two different women in the same week.

Kouror Hassanzadeh, 28, of Lancaster Way, Thornaby-on-Tees, admitted two charges of sexual assault when he appeared at Teesside Magistrates' Court on Monday, 6th September 2021.

Sexual assault is an offence under section 3 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. It is an either way offence with a maximum penalty of 10 years' custody on conviction on indictment, 6 months' custody and/or an unlimited fine on summary conviction. We have discussed this offence in greater detail in an earlier article.

Hassanzadeh had attended court to face trial on one of the offences, but changed his plea at the last moment.

Anne Mitchell, prosecuting, outlined the circumstances of the offences to the court.

Ms Mitchell said that the victim of the first assault had been shopping alone in the Asda store in Thornaby on Sunday, 2nd May 2021.

She became aware that a male "was looking at her" and noticed the same male again when she moved to a different aisle.

Hassanzadeh then "grabbed her bottom with some grip" before grabbing it a second time.

He then told her "I really want to have sex with you", before following her and touching her bottom for a third time.

The victim reported the incident to a shop assistant, who in turn alerted a security guard. Hassanzadeh was then escorted from the store.

The second assault, which Hassanzadeh had previously admitted, took place on Tuesday, 4th May 2021, when he stepped out in front of a female jogger and grabbed her bottom.

He told the jogger "with an arse that looks that nice you have to grab it", before adding "I'm not going to hurt you - I just want one kiss and I'll leave you alone".

Daniel Burke, mitigating, said that his client was a man "of previous good character", who had previously experienced mental health problems and been treated as an inpatient at Roseberry Park Hospital, Middlesbrough.

He said that Hassanzadeh "doesn't recall" the sexual assaults and is "working with various professionals".

Magistrates adjourned the case pending the completion of a pre-sentence report.

Hassanzadeh was granted conditional bail until his sentencing hearing at the same court on Friday, 15th October 2021.

This kind of offence is always distressing for the victim concerned, but there are several aspects of this particular case, as reported, that I find deeply disturbing - Hassanzadeh's deliberate and brazen targeting of the women, deeply inappropriate comments, false sense of entitlement, apparently lack of remorse and making contact with the women multiple times.

It'll be interesting to see if the bench considers the totality of these offences so serious that only a custodial sentence is appropriate.

I would also like to think that Asda will reflect on the actions of its security guard, who seems to have removed Hassanzadeh from the store instead of detaining him and calling the police.

Government Pledges New Pet Abduction Legislation

The Government has pledged to bring forward legislation that will make it a specific offence to steal pets.

According to the findings of the Government's Pet Theft Taskforce, around 2,000 much-loved family dogs were stolen from their owners in 2020. Dog thefts account for the overwhelming majority of animal thefts (around 70%), but only around 0.5% of all recorded thefts.

Between 2019 and 2020 the number of dog thefts increased by 3.5%, despite the number of all reported thefts falling by 26%. It is believed the coronavirus pandemic is fuelling the demand for dogs.

Current legislation, specifically the Theft Act 1968, treats the theft of pets in a similar way to that of any other property. Treating pets in a materialistic way fails to take into account the significant emotional bond between owners, their families and their animals.

The Pet Theft Taskforce made the following recommendations:

1. The creation of a new pet abduction offence.

Pet theft is currently treated as a loss of property to the owner, but we know that does not reflect the true severity of this crime. The new offence will prioritise the welfare of our pets as sentient beings and recognise the emotional distress to the animal in addition to its owner.

2. Identifying and tracking cases.

Reliable data on pet theft is limited and improved recording and data collection about these crimes will build a stronger evidence base about the problem.

3. Improving the recording of ownership and transfer data.

New requirements to register additional details and a single point of access to microchipping databases will support tracking lost and stolen dogs.

4. Tackling the fear of crime.

Police will work together with partner agencies to raise awareness about police initiatives and prevention measures.

The Government hopes that implementing these recommendations will make it far easier for the authorities to detect stolen pets and far harder for criminals to steal and dispose of pets.

The Rt. Hon. George Eustice MP, Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, said: "Pets are much loved members of the family in households up and down the country, and reports of a rise in pet theft have been worrying. Pet owners shouldn't have to live in fear, and I am pleased this report acknowledges the unique distress caused by this crime.

"Its recommendations will reassure pet owners, help the police to tackle pet theft, and deliver justice for victims. We will consider its findings carefully and work with colleagues across Government to start implementing its recommendations."

The Rt. Hon. Robert Buckland MP QC, the Lord Chancellor, said: "Many of us have sought the companionship of pets during the pandemic which makes this crime even more cruel.

"These proposals will make sure police can better identify and track down criminals who peddle in this heartless trade, whilst ensuring they are appropriately punished for their actions."

Although there has been no official confirmation, rumour has it that the maximum penalty for the new offence of pet abduction will be somewhere in the region of 5 to 7 years.

As an animal lover I am massively in favour of this proposed new legislation. As I have said before, I love my dog to death and he is treated very much as part of the family. I would be utterly devastated if any harm came to him or any criminal stole him.

I hope the Government's army of lawyers will consider the text of the new legislation carefully. The word "pet" doesn't quite cover it - a working animal, although not strictly a pet, can be every bit as valuable and emotionally-attached to its owner - I'm thinking sheep dogs, guide dogs and that sort of thing.