Please note that articles may contain affilitate links. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

Saturday, 27 May 2023

Who's Laughing Now? TikToker Mizzy Remanded in Custody

A menace TikToker has been remanded in custody after he denied breaching a criminal behaviour order.

Bacari-Bronze O'Garro, 18, of Crayford Road, Dartford, denied three offences of breaching a criminal behaviour order when he appeared in custody at Thames Magistrates' Court on Saturday, 27th May 2023.

The maximum penalty for this offence is 6 months' imprisonment, an unlimited fine or both on summary conviction; or 5 years' imprisonment, an unlimited fine, or both on conviction on indictment.

As discussed in yesterday's article, the order was imposed on Wednesday, 24th May 2023 as a result of O'Garro's conviction for breaching the requirements of a community protection notice.

It included a prohibition on him uploading video footage to social media without the explicit consent of those featured in it. It also prohibited him from attending the Westfield Centre in Stratford.

Within hours the Metropolitan Police had received a complaint that the unemployed 18-year-old - who was described as "an intelligent young man and a young man with some potential" by his solicitor at Wednesday's hearing - had breached both of those conditions.

O'Garro was remanded in custody until his next hearing at Thames Magistrates' Court on Tuesday, 30th May 2023.

It should be highlighted that in these circumstances a person can only be remanded in custody if the court believes there is a real prospect of custody should they be convicted of the offence. Although not explicitly reported by the media, it seems likely that District Judge Susan Holdham refused bail because she is of the opinion that if bail were granted O'Garro would commit further offences.

The hearing on Tuesday, which is undoubtedly his second bail application, could well take place by videolink. Should he be refused bail on that occasion, the chances are he'll be on remand until the trial date.

Update (30/5/23): As expected, O'Garro has made a second bail application. On this occasion, he has been granted bail with conditions until his trial at Stratford Magistrates' Court on Wednesday, 19th July 2023.

Friday, 26 May 2023

TikTok Joker Convicted of Breaching Community Protection Notice

A TikTok joker has been convicted of breaching a community protection notice.

Bacari-Bronze O'Garro, 18, of Manor Road, Hackney, admitted one offence of failing to comply with a community protection notice when he appeared at Thames Magistrates' Court on Wednesday, 24th May 2023.

Failure to comply with a community protection notice is an offence under section 48(1) of the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014. The maximum penalty on the summary conviction of an individual is a fine at level 4 (currently £2,500 maximum). We have previously written about the legalities surrounding community protection notices.

The court heard that unemployed O'Garro, who goes by the name "Mizzy" on TikTok, was made subject to a community protection notice on 11th May 2022. The conditions of the notice prohibited him from trespassing onto private property.

Varinder Hayre, prosecuting, told the court that O'Garro had done just that by walking uninvited into a Hackney residential property on Monday, 15th May 2023. Not only that, but he uploaded footage of the distraught occupants of the property onto TikTok for the entertainment of his viewers.

Ms Hayre said: "The door of the property was open.

"Mr O'Garro walked into the property and immediately walked down the stairs.

"He was stopped by the home owner.

"He went into the living room. He sat down on the sofa and said 'Is this where the study group is?'"

Footage of the incident shows that O'Garro was repeatedly asked to leave the property.

It transpires the stunt was part of an idiotic social media trend, whereby TikTok users walk uninvited into other people's homes and record the interaction.

Lee Sergent, mitigating, told the court that his client, who had "an extremely difficult childhood", apologised for the incident.

"He is an intelligent young man and a young man with some potential," said Mr Sargent.

O'Garro is not in education, employment or training and is claiming Universal Credit.

In relation to the breached community protection notice, he was fined £200 and ordered to pay £80 surcharge and £85 towards prosecution costs.

District Judge Charlotte Crangle also made O'Garro subject to a two-year criminal behaviour order, which prohibits him from posting videos on social media without the documented consent of those featured in the footage; prohibits him from trespassing on private property; and prohibits him from attending the Westfield Centre in Stratford.

STOP PRESS: O'Garro has been arrested again this morning on suspicion of breaching his criminal behaviour order by uploading further social media videos on 24th and 25th May 2023.

Update (27/5/23): O'Garro has now been charged with three breaches of his criminal behaviour order. He appears in custody at Thames Magistrates' Court this morning, Saturday, 27th May 2023. Should he be convicted of the offence (e.g. admit it when he appears), which has a maximum penalty of 5 years' custody on conviction on indictment, then it is unlikely he will be sentenced today. Sentencing would likely be adjourned for probation reports and allocated to the District Judge who made the order, DJ Charlotte Crangle. That being the case, the Crown may well make an application for him to be remanded in custody to prevent the commission of further offences.

Update (27/5/23): O'Garro has denied the three breaches. He has been remanded in custody until his next hearing on Tuesday, 30th May 2023.

Tuesday, 23 May 2023

Frustrations of Being a Magistrate: Episode 7: The Scarcity of Youth Court Work

In addition to the adult Magistrates' Court, which is the usual topic of conversation on this blog, specially trained and appointed Magistrates also sit in the Youth Court.

I am one such Magistrate.

The Youth Court deals with offenders aged between 10 and 17 years old. Legislation defines a child as being younger than 14 years old; a young person as being between 14 and 17 years old. The age of criminal responsibility in England and Wales in 10 years old and anyone below that age cannot be convicted of a criminal offence. The principle aim of the youth justice system is to prevent offending by children and young people.

The main frustration of sitting in the Youth Court is the lack of work. Over the last few years the police, certainly in my area, have done their utmost to avoid criminalising children and young people by dealing with offences by out of court disposal.

There are three general types of out of court disposal - community resolutions; youth cautions and youth conditional cautions. Serious offences that would invariably result in criminal proceedings against an adult in the Magistrates' Court - burglary, theft of a motor vehicle and the like - are intercepted before they make it as far as the Youth Court.

The upshot is that very few cases appear in the Youth Court list. Instead of sitting weekly, the court now sits on a once or twice monthly basis. It is virtually impossible to pick up the 15 minimum sittings expected every year.

Because there are so few cases, those that are listed are often picked up by a District Judge who wishes to keep their hand in. On more than one occasion I have arrived at court expecting to sit in youth, only to find that I have been bumped across to the adult court.

The serious concern is that there are so few sittings that youth Magistrates are struggling to maintain currency and competence. This is something that needs to be addressed.


Wednesday, 17 May 2023

Rochdale Man Impersonated Driving Theory Test Candidates

A Rochdale man has been convicted of fraud after impersonating driving theory test candidates at test centres around the country.

Aaron Farrell, 27, of Turf Hill, Rochdale, admitted offences of fraud by false representation and possessing an article for use in fraud when he appeared at Tameside Magistrates' Court on Wednesday, 16th May 2023.

Fraud by false representation is an offence under section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006. It has a maximum penalty of 10 years' custody and/or an unlimited fine on conviction on indictment; 26 weeks' custody and/or an unlimited fine on summary conviction.

Farrell was caught by eagle-eyed staff at the York driving theory test centre, who recognised his face from a nationwide circular about driving test fraudsters.

He had attended the centre to take a test in the name of a friend, Azizullah Adikhail, who had paid him £200.

Tess Kenyon, prosecuting, outlined the facts: "On 23rd March 2022, staff at the York Test Centre in the Clifford Chambers building were invigilating participants taking their driving theory tests.

"The defendant came into the test centre and showed staff his ID to staff, which showed the portrait, date of birth and address of Azizullah Adikhail.

"CCTV cameras in the centre identified the defendant as someone who they believed had been taking false theory tests. Test centre manager, Daniel Clapham, noted that the defendant was a prolific nation-wide impersonator that is likely to use a number of identities. He on a list of individuals who would carry out fraud."

A statement by Daniel Clapham, test centre manager said: "Among the staff, we agreed to let him take the test but would keep an eye on him and had already alerted the police. Before that we asked him for his name and date of birth, which he answered correctly.

"However, he hesitated when we asked him for his address and then gave an incorrect address."

The police arrived an arrested Farrell. Fake identification documents were found when he was searched.

Magistrates heard that Farrell has previous convictions for dishonesty, including perverting the course of justice.

Martha Whitehead, mitigating, said: "His reason for being there that day was because he was destitute and desperate. He accepted an offer from a friend for £200 and he took that offer.

"He did it to support himself, he had recently lost his job and was tempted."

The court heard that Farrell was now doing some limited work for parcel delivery company DPD.

Celia Metcalfe JP, Presiding Justice, asked Farrell why he committed the offences.

Farrell replied: "I did it out of desperation, I was sacked from my job and I had no income.

"I will never do it again in my life your honour. I'm sorry."

Magistrates were of the view that Farrell's offences were so serious that only a custodial sentence was appropriate. However, for reasons that have gone unreported, they stepped back from immediate custody.

Addressing Farrell, Mrs Metcalfe said: "The most worrying thing to consider about this offence was that a person could have ended up driving on the roads not even having taken the theory tests. You would have gotten away with it if it was not for the vigilance of the test centre staff."

Farrell was sentenced to 24 weeks' custody suspended for 12 months, with the requirement that he completes 20 days' rehabilitation activity and is subject to 6 months' electronically monitored curfew.

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

Saturday, 13 May 2023

Warrington Man Jailed for Flashing and Threatening Behaviour

An Iraqi national living in Warrington has been jailed after committing a spate of vulgar offences in his adoptive town.

Dana Mustapha, 34, of New Road, Latchford, Warrington, denied seven offences (listed below), but was convicted at trial at Warrington Magistrates' Court on Thursday, 11th May 2023.

The offences were as follows:

Angela Blackmore, prosecuting, told the court that Mustapha had approached a young man walking his dog in the Latchford suburb of Warrington at the start of September 2022. As he got nearer, Mustapha had shouted threats and abuse at the man, telling him "I'm going to fuck you up". The man continued walking and ignored Mustapha.

On 6th September 2022, at the nearby Co-op store on Knutsford Road, the same complainant was approached by Mustapha for a second time. Again Mustapha made threatening comments, but this time he proceeded to drop his trousers and expose his penis. Ms Blackmore noted that there were several school children nearby, given the location and time of day.

The same complainant was approached by Mustapha on two further occasions over the next few days. On the first of those occasions, he shouted homophobic abuse at the man and threatened to slash the dog's throat. On the second occasion the complainant phoned a friend, who arrived to confront Mustapha.

Mustapha pleaded ignorance to the complainant's friend and claimed not to understand English. The police were called and the friend detained Mustapha at the scene, sustaining severe bruising as he was kicked and headbutted in the process.

Ms Blackmore described a second incident that occurred on New Road, Latchford, on 6th September 2022. Mustapha approached a woman asking for a cigarette. As he did so, he exposed his penis and began masturbating in front of her.

The woman responded with laughter, telling the Iraqi that her dogs had bigger penises than he did. With that he ran away from the scene "with hurt pride".

The woman, who clearly isn't one to mess with, added that if she had seen Mustafa again she "would have launched him".

The following afternoon, 7th September 2022, a man and his toddler stepson were at the children's play area in Victoria Park, Latchford.

The man's attention was drawn to foreign talking and singing in the nearby bushes. Aware he had been spotted Mustapha dropped his tracksuit bottoms and squatted near to the ground, as if to defecate.

The witness described a look of "evil excitement" on Mustapha's face as he "reached around as if he was aiming to grab hold of what he had passed to throw it".

Ms Blackmore also told the court that Mustapha had targeted a business in Warrington town centre over a period of months.

He would stare at the owner and customers through the window, on one occasion unbuttoning his trousers and exposing his penis to them.

On two occasions he had urinated, in full public view, on the frontage of the business.

The owner upgraded the CCTV and locks to her business, so that Mustapha could not gain access. She also reduced the shop's opening hours, which resulted in a further loss of income.

Unfortunately the Warrington Guardian has totally omitted the defence case, which was rejected by the court. Given the apparent weight of prosecution evidence it would have taken a phenomenal piece of defence advocacy to get Mustapha acquitted.

Magistrates convicted Mustapha of all offences.

Peter Green, mitigating, said: "Someone with poor mental health, as this defendant has, will struggle and will cope badly in a custodial setting.

"The easy option is to sentence him to immediate custody. It would dispense justice and keep him off the streets for a few months.

"But it does nothing to address any of the issues underlying his behaviour. I would ask you to impose a suspended prison sentence along with requirements."

Nevertheless, Warrington colleagues, who always seem a very pragmatic bunch, took the view that the easy option was the most appropriate one.

Mustapha was sentenced to 46 weeks' immediate custody.

He was also ordered to pay £200 in compensation to the man he had assaulted.

Additionally, he was made subject to a four-year restraining order that prohibits him from approaching or contacting six named individuals or entering a named street in Latchford.

He was also made subject to a four-year criminal behaviour order that prohibits him from entering or loitering at Victoria Park or any other children's play area in Warrington.

It also prohibits him from contacting any female in an open public space in Warrington, except any public building or premises, retail premises, sports stadia or licensed premises.

Friday, 12 May 2023

Bristol Man Convicted of Using Mobile Phone in Stationary Car

A Bristol man has been convicted of using a hand-held mobile phone whilst driving, after unsuccessfully arguing that his car engine had been switched off at the time.

Joseph Scott, 36, of Muller Road, Horfield, Bristol, denied using a hand-held mobile phone whilst driving, but was convicted at trial at Bath Magistrates' Court on Wednesday, 26th April 2023.

Using a hand-held mobile phone or other hand-held interactive communication device whilst driving is an offence under section 41D of the Road Traffic Act 1988.

The maximum penalty for this offence on summary conviction is a fine at level 3 (£1,000). Additionally, since 1st March 2017, the court has been obliged to endorse the offender's driving licence with 6 penalty points.

In circumstances that aren't immediately apparent, Scott was spotted using a hand-held mobile phone on Stapleton Road, Bristol sometime back in April 2022.

Given the limited reporting of this case it is not apparent if Scott was represented at trial, but I suspect not.

It would appear the basis of Scott's defence was that he was not driving the vehicle at the time he was observed using his hand-held mobile phone because it was stationary at a red traffic light and the electronic stop-start function had turned the engine off.

The Crown Prosecution Service's website, which I paraphrase below, provides a nice summary of the relevant legislation.

Whether or not a person is driving a vehicle is a matter of opinion for the court, but case law (Edkins v Knowles [1973] 57 Cr App R 751) has established some important factors for consideration:

  • The vehicle need not be moving in order for driving to take place. Once the vehicle has come to rest there are certain operations - applying the handbrake, switching off the ignition, securing it etc - that should be considered as part of the driving process.
  • Whether or not the driver has reached the end of their journey. Subject to the brief interval required to carry out the operations mentioned in the preceding bullet point, if they have reached the end of the journey then they should no longer be regarded as driving.
  • When the driver stops during their journey following questions will be relevant in deciding whether they are still driving or not:
    • Is the purpose of the stop connected with the driving?
    • How long was the stop? The longer it was the less likely it is that they can still be considered to be driving;
    • Did they get out? If not, that is an indication (although not conclusive) that they are still driving.
  • When a motorist has been effectively prevented or dissuaded from driving then they are no longer considered to be driving.

The upshot of that is, if a vehicle momentarily stops at traffic lights then even if the engine automatically cuts out a motorist can still be considered to be driving. That being the case, if they're using a hand-held mobile phone at the time a vehicle momentarily stops then they can still be considered to be using a hand-held mobile phone whilst driving.

Scott was fined £228 and ordered to pay £34 surcharge and £620 towards prosecution costs.

His licence was endorsed with 6 penalty points.

Archbishop of Canterbury Clocked Speeding

The Archbishop of Canterbury was clocked by a speed camera in central London.

Justin Portal Welby, 67, of Lambeth Palace, London, was convicted of exceeding the speed limit at Lavender Hill Magistrates' Court on Thursday, 11th May 2023.

Welby had previously admitted, in his response to a Single Justice Procedure Notice, driving at 25 mph in a temporary 20 mph zone on Albert Embankment, London, on Sunday, 2nd October 2022.

He was fined £300 and ordered to pay £120 surcharge and £85 towards prosecution costs.

His driving licence was also endorsed with 3 penalty points.

Wednesday, 10 May 2023

Peterborough Pretend Cop Pulled Over Driver

A Peterborough man used blue flashing lights to pull over a lone female who "annoyed" him by her standard of driving.

Chris Green, 31, of Nursery Close, Peterborough, admitted impersonating a police officer when he appeared in custody at Swindon Magistrates' Court on Tuesday, 9th May 2023.

This is an offence under section 90(1) of the Police Act 1996. The maximum penalty on summary conviction is 6 months' custody and/or an unlimited fine.

Magistrates heard that the offence was committed on Saturday, 6th May 2023, on a country lane near Corsham, Wiltshire.

Green was driving down the lane at a speed of around 30 mph when the female driver overtook in her vehicle. He became annoyed and illuminated blue lights that were displayed through the windscreen of his blue Ford, causing the woman to pull over.

The 31-year-old security guard then approached the woman's car and told her he was "law enforcement" and "working undercover". His manner changed when he noticed a child sat in the passenger seat.

The police arrested Green two days later, finding handcuffs and a baseball bat in his vehicle.

Liz Highams, mitigating, told the court that her client, who had been working in the area, found himself in "an unusual situation" for a man of no previous convictions.

She said that the blue lights were fitted in connection with his security work on private land, but he accepted that he had turned them on because he was angry and wanted to remonstrate with the woman.

He did not intentionally impersonate a police officer, Ms Highams added.

Christine Smith, Presiding Justice, said: "It was all quite sinister.

"For all intents and purposes, she was alone. You took her down a lane and you had weapons in the car, and a means to restrain her. When you saw her child you backed away from her."

Magistrates ordered a pre-sentence report.

Green, who wept in the dock, was granted conditional bail until his sentencing hearing at Peterborough Magistrates' Court on Wednesday, 5th July 2023.

Detective Inspector Matt Smith, of Wiltshire Police, said: "This was understandably a very unsettling incident for the woman involved, and will no doubt cause concern within the local community. I am pleased that the victim called police immediately which enabled us to locate the vehicle quickly and arrest Green, and seize items from his vehicle as part of our investigation.

"We'd urge anyone who may feel unsure whether a person they are dealing with is a genuine police officer to call us on 101 to check their identity immediately. If a crime is in progress, call 999. 

"We'd also urge anyone with further information about this incident, or who thinks they have been victim to a similar incident, to call the police on 101."

Saturday, 6 May 2023

Update: Former Norfolk Police Inspector Sentenced Over Obscene Messages

A former Norfolk police inspector has been sentenced for sending obscene and indecent messages in which he discussed committing child sexual abuse.

Jonathan (Jon) Pierre Papworth, 46, admitted two offences of using a public electronic communications network to send indecent and obscene messages when he appeared at Norwich Magistrates' Court on Tuesday, 21st February 2023.

This is an offence under section 127(1) of the Communications Act 2003. It has a maximum penalty of 6 months' custody and/or an unlimited fine on summary conviction.

He was back at the same court for sentencing on Friday, 28th April 2023.

We wrote about Papworth's conviction at the time. Briefly, he was caught out by sending obscene messages to an undercover officer. 

Although there were few details published at the time of his conviction, the fact that District Judge Elizabeth Hart made an interim sexual harm prevention order - an order that can only be made when the court is satisfied that a person poses a risk of sexual harm to members of the public - gave an indication of the nature of Papworth's offences.

Papworth was sentenced to 8 weeks' custody suspended for 24 months.

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

Details of a Norfolk Constabulary misconduct hearing were published at the conclusion of criminal proceedings.

The panel, chaired by Chief Constable Paul Sandford, found Papworth guilty of gross misconduct which would have warranted immediate dismissal had he not already resigned.

Papworth's name has also been added to the Police Barred List.