Prickly Solihull Neighbour Dispute Ends in Court

A prickly Solihull neighbour dispute has ended up in court.

Dr Niall Martin, 72, of St Bernard's Road, Olton, was cleared of theft and criminal damage following a trial at Birmingham Magistrates' Court last week.

The prosecution was brought privately by David Sandom, a neighbour of Dr Martin, who accused the retired general practitioner of destroying and stealing a holly tree growing between their adjacent gardens.

According to Mr Sandom, the destruction and loss of the well established holly has resulted in a potential loss of £56,048.

Green-fingered Dr Martin, who hosts an annual "In Bloom" event in his garden, was shocked to receive a summons on charges of theft and criminal damage in relation to the tree.

Magistrates heard that the neighbours, who had enjoyed a cordial relationship for more than 20 years, had an over-the-fence discussion about the removal of trees.

It was agreed that Dr Martin could remove a beech tree, which was overhanging his garden. Dr Martin set about obtaining the necessary permissions to fell the tree.

Giving evidence, Mr Sandom denied that the agreement extended to the removal of the holly tree.

He said: "I refused permission point blank. It leans this way it doesn't lean over his garden at all. I said I'm not going to give permission to cut down a mature tree.

"He said he didn't need permission to cut it down and seemed to infer it was some sort of pest. It didn't make any sort of sense to me. I didn't buy that. I know you have to have permission no matter what tree it is."

Six months later, in February 2021, Mr Sandom noticed tree surgeons in the garden.

He continued: "If I had new neighbours I would have been watching the trees like a hawk, but it was Niall. We always got on.

"It was very civil. He came to my father's funeral. I never dreamed he would do that.

"I looked down and the holly tree had gone. I was stunned. Actually stunned. I saw the tree surgeons there. I was angry. They said Niall instructed us to do it.

"I couldn't describe how angry I was. They asked if I wanted to talk to Niall. I said, 'What's the point, it's gone'. I went back in the house. The time for conversation was before not after."

Asked why he thought the tree belonged to him, Mr Sandom replied: "It was obvious to anyone who has got two eyes that was my property. Very obvious."

Dr Martin took a different view on the ownership of the tree.

He said: "My understanding was that the tree was on my side, on my property, because it appeared so to the naked eye. It appeared so when I looked down the boundary.

"I made a fairly undoubted decision it was on my side. I didn't have too much doubt about it at all."

He said he had spoken to Mr Sandom as a matter of courtesy. He had asked Mr Sandom what evidence he had that the tree belonged to him, but Mr Sandom gave no response. According to Dr Martin, he decided to leave the conversation there as he didn't want it to become "acrimonious".

Dr Martin applied to Solihull Council to remove the trees in the garden, but conceded that he had forgotten to mention the holly tree as he thought it was part of the hedge.

"I originally wanted to reduce the height of the tree to permit more light into the garden. David said what was said.

"I believed it was on my side of the boundary. I took the opportunity of using the tree surgeons to reduce the height of the tree whilst they were there. It was an afterthought really."

Mr Martin claimed he knocked Mr Sandom's door to speak to him later that day but 'he saw it was me and didn't answer'.

He added: "When legal proceedings started I sent several letters to him in an effort to resolve the situation.

"Then to my shock and amazement I got a summons to come to court over it. I said hello to David as I passed him but he didn't reply. We had made distinct efforts to resolve this without it coming to court.

"It's important to emphasise I had no criminal intention in my behaviour. It was the last thing I was thinking of."

A chartered surveyor giving evidence for the prosecution said that the tree was more on Mr Sandom's side of the garden, but accepted it was not wholly in it.

A counterpart giving evidence for the defence said that the tree had been on the boundary.

Ben Bennett, an arboriculturalist, told the court that while the tree had been reduced it was "responding well and showing good vigour" adding it certainly had not been destroyed. He also concluded that the wood taken away had "no commercial value whatsoever".

Having considered the circumstances, Magistrates were of the view that they were unable to determine ownership of the tree and therefore neither the theft or criminal damage could be proved.

Addressing the court, the Presiding Justice said: "The point of ownership of the tree is disputed. We didn't believe the prosecution have shown beyond reasonable doubt the ownership of that tree therefore you can't be found guilty of either of these offences."

Having been found not guilty, the charges against Dr Martin were dismissed.

The proceedings in this case are unusual in that they were initiated by a private individual.

Subject to a few minor exceptions, any individual has the right under section 6 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 to institute criminal proceedings against an alleged offender. Organisations like TV Licensing and the RSPCA regularly institute proceedings in these circumstances, but it is very rare for a private individual to do so.

What a sorry state of affairs that it ever got this far. What a tragic end to more than 20 years of neighbourly relations.

Brass Neck: Merseyside Motoring Menace Loses Exceptional Hardship Appeal

A Merseyside woman has lost her appeal against the Magistrates' Court's decision to refuse her exceptional hardship application.

Louise Whelan, 32, of Wallasey, appeared at Liverpool Crown Court on Thursday, 24th November 2022.

By way of history, Whelan was already disqualified from driving for a period of 12 months when she was convicted of further driving offences at Wirral Magistrates' Court last September.

With 33 penalty points on her licence, stemming from a multitude of previous relevant offences, the court took the view that Whelan should be disqualified for a further 36 months under the totting up rule.

In an effort to avoid a further period of disqualification Whelan made an exceptional hardship application, which was refused by Wirral Magistrates' Court. Her recent appearance at the Crown Court was to appeal that refusal. As discussed in our earlier article, there is an automatic right of appeal for cases dealt with by the Magistrates' Court.

At the appeal Whelan said that her 10 and 12-year-old daughters, who apparently have various mental health difficulties, needed to be taken to school by car. Her older daughter's school had provided a taxi, but the girl often refused to use it.

Speaking at the appeal hearing, Whelan said: "This week (12-year-old) hasn't been going to sleep until 5 am and the school taxi picks up at 7.30 am and we struggle getting her up in the morning. The taxi, she has got to share it with another child and she doesn't like sharing taxis with other children so she's refusing, at the moment, to go to school, which is 12 miles away."

She added: "When she's actually in there she's only making it until 12.30 pm, 1 pm and they are ringing me asking if I will pick her up from school."

Whelan said this was causing problems, because it was interfering with a make-up course she was attending at a local college.

Her younger daughter, who attends a different school to her older sister, is currently being ferried to school by family members.

"It's very difficult having two of them and not having the car makes it difficult for me to get them to where they need to be, and not being able to take them out," explained Whelan.

Callum Ross, representing Whelan, told the court: "The appellant suggests there is hardship which is of an exceptional nature that is being caused to innocent individuals in the form of her two children. The court has heard the children, especially (oldest daughter) is struggling and not attending very well at school.

"The court has heard from Ms Whelan that she thinks being able to drive and take her daughter to school is going to benefit her daughter in terms of accessing her education, which as a young child with learning difficulties is very important."

Mr Recorder Eric Lamb, chairing the appeal bench, said: "Exceptional hardship must be just that. A disqualification from driving will inevitably present hardship to any person."

He said: "There are arrangements in place for (oldest daughter) to be able to attend the school, with a taxi provided. It seems the appellant has already made some application to try to set the taxi back an hour to better fit in with (her daughter's) sleeping pattern. There are travel arrangements in place which allow (oldest daughter), if she can be persuaded, to attend school."

With regards to the youngest daughter, he said: "There are arrangements in place presently for the appellant's mother to perform the duty of getting her to school on time."

Dismissing the appeal, he added: "The evidence leads us to the conclusion that there are arrangements in place for the transport of the children which are already being provided. While there is inevitably hardship in this case, we're not persuaded that this hardship or disqualification is exceptional."

I really cannot believe the sheer brass neck of this woman. The taxi to her eldest daughter's school must be costing the public purse a small fortune, yet she is turning her nose up at the arrangement. If her daughter can't get out of bed, then it is her responsibility (an alien concept, I know) as a parent to ensure that the girl gets enough sleep, does get out of bed, does get to school and does attend for the full day.

I am also incensed that she is trying, yet again, to play the "welfare of my children" card, when clearly - as someone who is a prolific offender and abysmal role model - that is a pretty low priority for her.

Edit (26/11/22): It has been pointed out to me that someone from The Wirral cannot correctly be referred to as a Liverpudlian, as in the original title of this article. Apologies for any offence caused by my rudimentary grasp of geography.

Wibble, Wibble, Wibble: Isle of Wight Freeman of the Land Learns the Hard Way

An Isle of Wight freeman of the land was forcibly removed from the dock when he refused to co-operate with court proceedings.

Brian James Bailey, 45, of no fixed abode, was convicted of driving without insurance, fraudulently using a vehicle registration number, obstructing a constable and possession of cannabis following a trial (of sorts) at Isle of Wight Magistrates' Court on Tuesday, 15th November 2022.

Bailey is a freeman of the land. Freemen of the land are a group of individuals who believe that they are only bound by those rules of society that they consent to.

As a general rule, freemen do not recognise the legislation that everyone else is bound by or the authorities that enforce or uphold that legislation. They only recognise their own (wayward) interpretation of common law.

There are several videos of freemen apparently successfully peddling their beliefs on YouTube, but these videos never show the moment they invariably end up in handcuffs or a cell.

Ann Smout, prosecuting, told the court that Bailey's van was stopped by police on Thursday, 13th October 2022 after they noticed that the registration number, BA11 3Y, was not present on the DVLA database.

Bailey pulled over, but refused to leave the vehicle when requested to by officers. Police had to smash the driver's side window in order to remove him from the vehicle, which caused disruption to other road users. Cannabis was found inside the van.

Bailey subsequently told police that he hadn't consented to be stopped, but had pulled over to let them pass by. He said his offences didn't have any victims, so didn't constitute a crime. That being the case he refused to co-operate with the judicial process.

Standing in the dock Bailey, who initially refused to identify himself, insisted that the court addressed him as "Brian James of the family Bailey". Clearly unimpressed, District Judge Anthony Calloway told the defendant "don't talk such tripe".

Bailey also refused to enter pleas for each offence, so DJ Calloway entered not guilty pleas on his behalf. He also attempted to read from a pre-prepared statement, despite being told he was not allowed.

This is where the newspaper report is a little unclear, but it would seem that Bailey's continued defiance was such that DJ Calloway ordered his removal to the cells. As the correct documentation had been served, the court then went on to try and prove each offence in Bailey's absence.

DJ Calloway then called for Bailey from the cells, told him that the offences had been proved in his absence and asked him to co-operate with the preparation of a pre-sentence report. Bailey refused to engage with probation and again insisted on reading his pre-prepared statement. DJ Calloway was clearly having none of it, so remanded Bailey in custody until his next hearing in three weeks' time.

I eagerly await the sentence DJ Calloway decides to impose. It sounds like he has pitched the offences at least in the community band but could also, if he was so minded, have Bailey's van off him and disqualify him from driving.

Freeman of the land wibble is quite rare. I've only ever had one defendant try it, but the legal advisor very quickly told him that if he didn't start co-operating we would very likely send him to the cells. He suddenly became more obliging!

British Transport Police Sergeant Convicted of Attempted Sexual Communication with a Child

A serving British Transport Police sergeant has been convicted of attempted sexual communication with a child.

James Chatfield, 36, of Huntingdon, Cambridgeshire, admitted two offences of attempting to engage in sexual communication with a child when he appeared at Westminster Magistrates' Court on Friday, 18th November 2022.

Sexual communication with a child is an offence under section 15A of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. It has a maximum penalty of 12 months' custody and/or an unlimited fine on summary conviction; 2 years' custody on conviction on indictment. Attempted sexual communication, which has the same maximum penalties, is an offence by virtue of section 1 of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981.

Offences like this are unfortunately quite common. As it might not be immediately obvious, I should mention that the reason this has been charged as an attempt is because Chatfield was snared communicating with undercover police officers posing as a children instead of with actual children.

The court heard that Chatfield posed as a 17-year-old boy when he engaged in conversation with what he believed were 12-year-old girls on Snapchat and Chat Avenue.

On 23rd September 2022 he used Snapchat to communicate with a supposed 12-year-old girl, who he asked "do you have little boobs?" and "would you like to show me?"

On 26th September 2022 he used Chat Avenue to communicate with a supposed 12-year-old girl, who he asked about her "cute bum" and said "can I come and feel it?" He also asked the girl to wear "something small and revealing" and suggested "how about a see-through vest and mini skirt?"

An investigation by South Wales Police confirmed that the Snapchat account was linked to an IP address associated with Chatfield's mobile phone.

Having considered the circumstances District Judge Michael Snow sent the case to Southwark Crown Court for sentencing, on a date yet to be confirmed.

In the meantime Chatfield, who is suspended from duty, was granted bail with the conditions that he lives and sleeps at his Huntingdon address, has no unsupervised contact with children and has no online communication with children.

Deputy Chief Constable Alistair Sutherland of the British Transport Police said: "As police officers it is our overriding duty to protect the public and particularly the vulnerable from harm, so it is profoundly disturbing to know that a serving officer could ever consider exploiting a child for their own sexual gain.

"I speak for everyone at British Transport Police when I say we are all truly shocked and appalled by the actions of James Chatfield. He does not represent our values and now he has been criminally convicted, we will be looking to fast track his disciplinary proceedings as soon as practicably possible.

"It is thanks to the swift and thorough investigation by our Professional Standards Department that Chatfield was arrested, charged, and brought before the courts to face justice within two months of these abhorrent offences."

The convictions signify a major fall from grace for Chatfield, who has twice been commended by the Royal Humane Society for saving the life of a member of the public and attempting to save the life of a fallen colleague.

Cowardly Staffordshire Father Jailed for Headbutting Headteacher

A Staffordshire father has been jailed for headbutting the headteacher of his daughter's school.

Shaun Pattyson, 28, of Brewster Road, Bucknall, admitted assault by beating when he appeared at North Staffordshire Magistrates' Court on Tuesday, 28th September 2022.

He was back at the same court for sentencing earlier this week.

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.

Emma Thompson, prosecuting at the first hearing, described the incident at Chesterton Community Sports College on Monday, 9th May 2022.

The school had contacted Pattyson's partner as a result of their daughter's persistently poor behaviour (clearly the apple didn't fall far from the tree).

Headteacher Robert Swindells, who has been at the school for 25 years, was having a conversation with the girl's mother when Pattyson arrived on the scene.

Miss Thompson said: "The headteacher had a conversation with the child's mum on the phone and she said she would come immediately to collect the child.

"The child went to the front entrance and began being rude. Within 10 minutes the child's parents arrived.

"The mother approached the front entrance and shouted at the child to get a phone. The child went to collect the phone.

"The defendant appeared and squared up to the headteacher. The headteacher could not remember what he said to him but the defendant was swearing at him before head-butting him. It connected with the right side of his face just below his right eye. He immediately fell to the floor as a result of the headbutt. He felt the defendant kick and punch him for approximately 10 seconds."

The clearly amused thug was heard to tell an injured Mr Swindells: "You went down like a sack of shit. Come down the park and I will finish you off."

An unrepentant Pattyson made full and frank admissions during his police interview.

"He said he headbutted the headteacher," Miss Thompson continued.

"He was shown the CCTV and admitted it was him head-butting, punching and kicking the victim. He said he believed the headteacher was a bully and that is why he assaulted him."

Representing himself at the first hearing, Pattyson said: "I'll admit to head-butting him because I did. I admit to punching him. I did not kick him. If this is on CCTV, show it to prove I did not kick him."

With the distinct possibility of custody looming Pattyson was slightly more contrite by the time of the sentencing hearing.

James Hulse, mitigating on that occasion, told the court that his client now accepted his behaviour was "out of order".

Pattyson has since, rather conveniently, been diagnosed with bipolar disorder.

Mr Hulse said: "In his words, 'It does not excuse my behaviour but it does provide some sort of explanation as to why I react in the way I do'."

Without a hint of irony, he added: "A suspended sentence would have some teeth. There has been a noticeable change in the last two weeks. He seems to think before he acts."

District Judge Kevin Grego wasn't accepting any flannel.

Addressing Pattyson, the Judge said: "You pleaded guilty to an offence of common assault on Mr Swindells on 9th May. There had been problems at the school that morning. You and your partner had been contacted and were told the child was going to have to leave the school, at least for the day.

"Very shortly afterwards, as seen on CCTV, you arrived. Mr Swindells and the child were on the steps. There was no verbal engagement. You simply walked up to him, caught his attention to turn to you and, in my judgement, in utterly cowardly fashion, you caught him by headbutting him before he could react to your presence, and with such force he went to the ground. On the way down you punched him repeatedly and he went down.

"This happened on school premises in front of the child and in front of other students. Public servants need to have confidence that when they are victims of crime the court will impose appropriate punishment and in this case the only appropriate sentence is prison for four months."

Every day hundreds of teachers and school staff are subjected to the most horrendous of verbal and physical abuse by parents, with the expectation that they will just accept it "as part of the job".

It is not part of the job and there is no place whatsoever for such abysmal parental conduct in our schools.

This sentence is entirely appropriate and will hopefully act as a firm deterrent to others.

HMCTS Reassurances on Future of Berwick-upon-Tweed Magistrates' Court

His Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) has reaffirmed its position that there are currently no plans to close Berwick-upon-Tweed Magistrates' Court, despite the current lack of workload at the venue.

Given the isolated nature of the court, there have been concerns that HMCTS might use the miasma of covid-19 to quietly wind the court down and close the doors for the final time - a situation, so it would seem, that has clear parallels with that at Skipton Magistrates' Court.

The next nearest court, Mid and South East Northumberland Magistrates' Court in Bedlington, is located 50 miles to the south of Berwick and is very difficult to get to via public transport. Berwick has already survived two previous closure attempts owing to its unique geography and local circumstances.

Earlier this year Magistrates' Blog reported plans to reopen Berwick-upon-Tweed Magistrates' Court following a 2-year extended closure due to extensive building work at the adjoining police station. HMCTS told us hearings would resume at Berwick from 30th March 2022.

The clock has ticked forward a further six months and local colleagues inform us that they have still not set foot in Berwick Magistrates' Court since early 2020. That being the case, we contacted HMCTS for further clarification on its reopening timetable.

In a letter dated 10th November 2022, an HMCTS spokesperson said: "I can confirm that Berwick-upon-Tweed Magistrates Court is currently being used for civil and family lists every 4 weeks on a Wednesday and for additional days as and when required.

"Hearings have taken place on 13 April, 11 & 25 May, 22 June, 20 July, 17 August, 14 September & 12 & 20 October 2022. Which includes tribunal use in October.

"In respect of criminal proceedings, there are ongoing discussions taking place with stakeholders relating to the return to sitting at the site.

"There are currently no plans to close Berwick-upon-Tweed Magistrates' Court. We will continue to keep our operational estate under review and any future proposals to close the court would be subject to public consultation."

We will keep this matter under close review and bring further updates in due course.

Staffordshire Puppy Killer Flees Court Before Sentencing

A Staffordshire puppy killer fled from court as his sentence was being considered.

David Raybone, 39, of Lichfield Road, Tamworth, admitted the offence of causing unnecessary suffering to an animal when he appeared at Birmingham Magistrates' Court on Thursday, 17th November 2022. 

Causing unnecessary suffering to an animal is an offence under section 4 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006. For offences committed on or after 29th June 2021, as in this case, it has a maximum penalty of 5 years' custody on conviction on indictment; 12 months' custody and/or an unlimited fine on summary conviction.

Jane Skeates, prosecuting for the RSPCA, outlined the circumstances of the offence, which took place on Friday, 21st January 2022.

Ms Skeates said: "On the day in question the puppy escaped from Mr Raybone's address, a flat in the vicinity of Rivermead Vets in Tamworth.

"One of the vets was outside the centre exercising his own dog. He assisted in catching the puppy and gave it back to Mr Raybone. Mr Raybone then went on to release the dog again.

"Various members of the public observed him restrain the dog by virtue of a leather belt around the neck. It was a leather belt with a metal buckle."

A witness described the terrified young pup frantically trying to escape from Raybone.

"She felt exceptionally uneasy," Ms Skeates continued.

"The man himself (Raybone) had a really nasty, aggressive way. He lifted the dog off the ground so the dog had no feet on the floor at all.

"She wanted to intervene but was scared. He was dragging the dog on his side behind him and the dog wasn't moving. The whole incident upset her and made her sick to her stomach."

Other members of the public removed the puppy from Raybone and took it into the vets for treatment, but it was too late to save the unresponsive animal.

Mark Moore, mitigating, told the court that his client was battling addiction.

"The defendant had the dog and when he received the dog it was in a poor condition," said Mr Moore.

"He spent money on that dog getting it to a state of health. Although he accepts what happened, the dog was well looked after. He had appropriate food and appropriate bedding and appropriate leads within his flat.

"This was not a prolonged period of neglect. Mr Raybone cared for the dog in an entirely appropriate way."

Mr Moore said that his client had panicked when the young puppy escaped and was concerned at the intervention of members of the public.

Having heard the circumstances, District Judge David Wain retired to consider sentencing options.

In the meantime Raybone took it upon himself to leave the court building, pausing briefly to tell an usher "I'm just calling my Mum".

He didn't return.

Having heard of the defendant's disappearing act, DJ Wain returned to court and said: "Well that's an unusual turnup for the books. There's a way he can make things considerably worse which is to abscond from court."

A warrant was issued for Raybone's arrest.

As a dog lover myself, I struggle to think of many things lower than people who abuse them.

A spineless, dog-abusing bully, who is too gutless to face up to his punishment - that just about trumps it.

North Tyneside Man Sexually Assaulted Woman on Metro Train

A North Tyneside man sexually assaulted a vulnerable woman travelling on the Tyne and Wear Metro.

Leon Clarkson, 20, of Shearwater Avenue, Longbenton, admitted sexual assault when he appeared recently at North Tyneside Magistrates' Court.

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, 12 months' custody and/or an unlimited fine on summary conviction.

Magistrates heard that the offence took place on a Metro train travelling between South Gosforth and Four Lane Ends stations on Tuesday, 19th April 2022. The journey between the two stations lasts around 5 minutes.

Clarkson approached the woman, who was described as "out of it" as she lay "unconscious" across one of the seats. A fellow passenger saw him repeatedly put his hands down the vulnerable woman's leggings and touch her genital area.

Glenda Beck, prosecuting, outlined the facts: "The male had his hands down the front of her leggings and had his hand on her vagina.

"He kept taking his hand out of her leggings then putting it back down again. This went on all the way between South Gosforth Metro Station and Four Lane Ends Metro Station. The witness says the female appeared totally unconscious. She was in no fit state to consent to what was happening to her.

"The witness challenged the male and said "could you not do that?". She couldn't remember what the male replied. She asked if the female was alright and he said "yeah, she's OK, she's my girlfriend"."

The witness then contacted her boyfriend, who reported the incident to the police.

On arrival at Four Lane Ends Clarkson picked up the woman and carried her off the train.

A second witness on the platform there asked what the woman had taken and how she was getting home.

Mrs Beck continued: "The defendant said that the female's mum was picking her up. The female appeared unconscious."

The police arrived at Four Lane Ends Metro Station and reviewed CCTV footage from the platform and train, which identified Clarkson as the offender.

The court heard that Clarkson has a previous conviction for outraging public decency, arising from when he performed a sex act on a Metro train back in 2019.

Gregg Stephens, mitigating, told the court that his client had learning difficulties, including autism and ADHD.

Mr Stephens said: "He became aware of this young lady, who was clearly not in a great state, on the Metro. Other people were taking the mick out of her.

"There was a group of lads there causing trouble and videoing her on their phones. He, initially, was genuinely trying to help her but he does accept that, for reasons he can't explain, he did "touch her up"."

Mr Stephens said his client denied touching the woman's genitals, claiming instead to have touched her upper leg.

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

Clarkson was granted conditional bail until his sentencing at the same court on Monday, 28th November 2022.

The conditions imposed prohibit him from travelling on public transport.

Huddersfield Town Footballer Turned Poacher

A Huddersfield Town footballer has been convicted of poaching.

Kian Harratt, 20, of Craven Road, Pontefract, admitted daytime poaching when he appeared at Beverley Magistrates' Court on Wednesday, 26th October 2022.

His co-accused - Billy Haigh, 20, of Main Street, South Heindley, Barnsley and Codie Colin Smith, 18, of Frickley Bridge Lane, Brierley, Barnsley - also admitted the offence.

Daytime poaching is an offence under section 30 of the Game Act 1831. For offences committed prior to 1st August 2022, as in this case, the maximum penalty on summary conviction is a maximum fine at level 3 (£1,000) or, for offences committed by a group of 5 or more offenders, level 4 (£2,500). For offences committed since 1st August 2022 the maximum penalty on summary conviction is 12 months' custody and/or an unlimited fine.

For this particular piece of legislation, a person is guilty of an offence if they are trespassing on land with the intention of hunting game - even if they don't actually hunt or catch any.

Magistrates heard that the offence took place near the village of Wressle in the East Riding of Yorkshire on Sunday, 3rd April 2022.

The police were contacted by locals who suspected the trio of illegal hare coarsing. Officers stopped a vehicle with the three men, and paraphernalia associated with poaching, found inside. It should be stressed that no actual evidence of hare coarsing was found.

Harratt was on loan to Port Vale at the time of the offence. Until today he was on loan to Bradford City, but The Bantams have just terminated that arrangement and returned the striker to Huddersfield Town.

Harratt was fined £830 and ordered to pay £150 towards prosecution costs and £83 surcharge; Haigh was fined £519 and ordered to pay £150 towards prosecution costs and £52 surcharge; Smith was fined £173 and ordered to pay £150 towards prosecution costs and £34 surcharge.

Sergeant Kevin Jones of Humberside Police said: "This conviction shows that the Rural Task Force will deal strongly with those offenders that visit our Force area to commit hare coursing offences.

"Along with the criminal offences, the offenders are dealt with via the local authority's antisocial behaviour team.

"I would like to thank the members of the public and landowners who witnessed this incident and who reported it and support our investigation.

"We will not tolerate the barbaric act of hare coursing, not only causing unimaginable suffering to our wildlife but also causing issues for local landowners who are often the subject of antisocial behaviour and damage to their land and property."

Mortified: Missed Sitting

For the first time in several years I recently faced the indignity of missing a sitting.

As you might expect for a genuine oversight, the first thing I knew about it was when the Rota Unit dropped me an email to enquire about my whereabouts.

I immediately replied, holding my hands up, admitting my mistake and apologising for any inconvenience or disruption caused. Of course people do phone in sick on the day, but at least that gives a couple of hours notice of their absence.

As it goes, I was due to sit in one of our smaller courts so my absence could have caused a lot of unnecessary hassle on the day. In busier courts there is often the potential to jiggle the benches about, but at a venue where only one bench is sitting that isn't possible. The only bit of good fortune is that I was due to sit as a winger, so it was slightly easier to plug the gap than if I was in the chair.

I have now printed out a hard copy of my rota and stuck it to the fridge door, so hopefully I'll not be so forgetful in future!