Jesse Lingard Totted After Failing to Provide Driver Details

England international footballer Jesse Lingard has been disqualified from driving under the totting up rule, after being convicted of failing to identify the driver of a vehicle registered to him.

Lingard, 30, admitted the offence when he appeared for trial at Manchester Magistrates' Court earlier today, Friday, 28th July 2023.

Reading between the lines it would appear there is a bit more to this case than meets the eye - not least the suggestion that a name previously provided as the driver of Lingard's vehicle was entirely fictitious. The midfielder, who most recently played for Nottingham Forest, also denied the offence at earlier hearings.

The court heard that a Range Rover registered to Lingard was clocked speeding on the A56 in Greater Manchester in August 2022.

The police made efforts to ascertain who was driving the vehicle at the time of the offence, by sending a Notice of Intended Prosecution (NIP) and Section 172 Notice to Lingard as registered keeper of the vehicle.

Lingard claims these documents never arrived with him, due to a change of address at around the same time. However, he has now had an apparent change of heart in relation to his plea.

Frank Rogers, mitigating, said: "Mr Lingard has accepted that the system in place at that time just was not good enough to protect him and deal with processing his mail.

"So when the speeding offence was committed in August last year in Stretford, Mr Lingard was in Nottingham. He was not the driver."

Mr Rodgers also put it to the court that as his client only had 6 penalty points on his licence he had no reason to try and dodge the speeding offence, which would not have resulted in his disqualification.

Tara Riley, prosecution, has indicated to the court that the basis of Lingard's plea is not entirely satisfactory to the Crown, but given the nature of the offence it wouldn't make a material difference in sentencing.

Ms Riley's comments are, I would suggest, quite interesting.

District Judge Jane Hamilton fined the footballer £900 and ordered him to pay £360 surcharge and £200 towards prosecution costs.

His licence was also endorsed with 6 penalty points, which means he is now disqualified from driving for a minimum period of 6 months under the totting up rule.

Mr Rogers indicated that Lingard, who earned £115,000 a week at Forest, had no intention of making an exceptional hardship application.

Dishonest Pembrokeshire Builder Fleeced Vulnerable Householder

A cowboy builder fleeced a vulnerable householder by charging him for roof work that was never carried out.

Peter Billydean Price, 25, of Broadmoor Nurseries, Kilgetty, Pembrokeshire, admitted two offences of fraud when he appeared at Aberystwyth Magistrates' Court on Thursday, 20th July 2023.

Fraud is an offence under section 1 of the Fraud Act 2006. It has a maximum penalty of 12 months' custody on summary conviction; 10 years' custody on conviction on indictment. The specific mode of fraud in this case has not been reported, but it appears to be a case of fraud by false representation.

Magistrates heard that Price, trading as Priced to Improve Property and Landscaping Services, responded to an advert posted by the householder seeking a builder to complete roof work at his Ceredigion property.

A price of £4,600 was agreed for Price to replace all of the ridge tiles at the property. However, when Price attended the property with two associates in January 2022 he actually repainted the existing ridge tiles orange to make it appear they had been replaced.

CCTV footage from the property saw the three men turn up with painting equipment and take less than three-and-a-half hours to bodge the job. Price ignored the householder's repeated attempts to make contact once he realised the poor standard of the work done.

Ceredigion County Council trading standards brought the prosecution. The Council employed a Chartered Quantity Surveyor to inspect the roof, who concluded that the shoddy work had been carried out by a roofer who was not competent, professional or reputable.

For his part, Price later acknowledged that the price was excessive and the work completed to a poor standard.

Magistrates were of the view that his offences were serious enough to merit a community order.

Price was handed a 12-month community order with the requirement that he completes 150 hours of unpaid work and up to 20 days' rehabilitation activity.

He was also ordered to pay £4,081 compensation, £95 surcharge and £1,000 towards prosecution costs.

Councillor Matthew Vaux, of Ceredigion County Council, said: "At a time when a lot of households are struggling financially, this case shows the valuable work undertaken by the Council's Public Protection Service to protect individuals in our community against rogue traders, and in turn, bringing justice for those affected by these heartless criminals."

Northampton Man Jailed for Driving Hours After Disqualification

A Northampton man has been jailed for driving only hours after he was disqualified from doing so.

Kumni Labinjo, 38, of Rounding Street, Northampton, admitting driving whilst disqualified when he appeared at Northampton Magistrates' Court on Tuesday, 25th July 2023.

By virtue of his disqualification, Labinjo also had no insurance to cover his use of his grey Range Rover Evoque.

Driving whilst disqualified is an offence under section 103 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. It has maximum penalty of 26 weeks' custody and/or a fine at level 5 (unlimited) on summary conviction.

Magistrates heard that Labinjo was convicted of driving with excess alcohol at the same court the previous day, Monday, 24th July 2023. At that hearing he was disqualified from driving for a period of 36 months.

Just a few hours later, at 9.10 pm, officers stopped a vehicle being driven by Labinjo.

Driving whilst disqualified is a very serious matter. Labinjo's offence is aggravated by the fact it has happened only a few hours after the disqualification was imposed. The court always takes a very dim view of any defendant who cocks a snook its orders.

At the time he was disqualified, he would have been left under no illusion that he must not drive a vehicle on any road or public place until the period of disqualification had expired and his licence had been returned by the DVLA.

Given the circumstances, Magistrates have taken the view that Labinjo's offence is so serious that only a custodial sentence was appropriate.

He was jailed for 12 weeks and ordered to pay £154 surcharge and £85 towards prosecution costs.

He was also disqualified from driving for a period of 46 months (so an additional 10 months).

No separate penalty was imposed in relation to the insurance offence.

Surrey Speeder Banned: An Example of Partial Reporting

A Surrey man has been disqualified from driving for speeding on the motorway.

Such a common occurrence would barely register, were it not for the comments I made yesterday about the perils of drawing full conclusions from only partial reporting.

This is a good example of superficial and selective court reporting. Unintentional, I'm sure, but it fails to present the full circumstances of both offender and offence. Given the non-specific nature of the article it is possible it has been written entirely on the basis of printed court results, instead of the journalist actually being present in court.

Steven Seymour, 55, of Burdenshot Road, Worplesdon, admitted speeding when he appeared at Southampton Magistrates' Court last week.

Speeding is an offence contrary to section 89(1) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. It is a summary offence with a maximum penalty of a fine at level 3 (£1,000 maximum), which increases to a fine of level 4 (£2,500 maximum) for offences committed on the motorway.

The article has failed to mention, but it is almost certain this offence was dealt with in the defendant's absence under the Single Justice Procedure. It being speeding, it would normally be a Police Led Prosecution.

Anyhow, Seymour's Jaguar was clocked at a speed of 89 mph on the M27 near Fareham on Thursday, 22nd September 2022. A speed limit of 70 mph was in force at the time.

Having read those details my first thought is that disqualification is pretty unlikely for exceeding the speed limit by such a margin. Don't get me wrong, speeding is a serious matter, but you get many, many people before the court for speeds far higher than that on the motorway.

The article continues to say that he was disqualified for a period of 6 months AND received 3 penalty points.

Such a combination does not come naturally for speeding (extract of relevant guideline shown above), so there must be another factor that the article has failed to mention - totting up.

Totting up can only be a factor if Seymour already had points on his licence - e.g. he did not have a clean driving record when convicted of this offence, which the article omits to mention.

Seymour was fined £58 and ordered to pay £23 surcharge and £110 towards prosecution costs.

Wirral Magistrates Open Special Reasons Can of Worms

Merseyside Magistrates have caused quite a stir by finding special reasons in the case of young a woman who was drunk in charge of a motor vehicle.

Introduction:

The case of 20-year-old project manager Mia Elliott has now been reported in several national newspapers and on their respective websites (see here, here and here). The general consensus in the court of public opinion seems to be that colleagues dealing with the case have succumbed to a fanciful tale and imposed too lenient a penalty.

I don't think I am being too uncharitable by saying that most of those commenting will have limited knowledge of the legislation pertaining to special reasons and of the unique circumstances in this case. It is a regular bugbear of mine that most Magistrates' Court reporting is superficial. It rarely gives the full reasons for decisions of the court, despite those reasons always being announced openly.

I often look at reports of cases I have been involved in and it is regularly the case that significant information has been omitted. The only way of knowing for certain what goes on in the courtroom is to actually be there, so I would urge caution against drawing full conclusions on the basis of what is probably partial reporting.

The case of Mia Elliott:

Back to the case at hand. It would appear that Elliott and friends had been on a night out in Heswall, Merseyside, back on 28th January 2023. She had consumed several cocktails over the course of the evening. In the early hours of morning (29th January) one of her friends, Brooklyn Connis, was assaulted outside the Suede nightclub.

Elliott ran back to her car with the intention, she would say, of taking Mr Connis to the Accident and Emergency Department at nearby Arrowe Park Hospital - a journey that would have taken around 10 minutes. Police officers have seen a distressed-looking Elliott running past their vehicle and entering her VW Golf. 

The officers have approached the Golf to check of the welfare of Elliott, finding her in the driving seat with the engine running. For whatever reason, they have had cause to believe Elliott was under the influence of alcohol, so have required her to provide a roadside specimen of breath.

That test was positive, so Elliott was arrested on suspicion on being drunk in charge of a motor vehicle. A subsequent evidential test has shown her to have a breath alcohol content of 49 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath, the prescribed limit being 35 microgrammes.

At the time of her arrest she has commented to the officers that someone was injured nearby, but she gave no more detail.

Elliott has been interviewed at the police station with a legal representative present. She responded "no comment" to each of the questions.

Elliott subsequently admitted being drunk in charge of a motor vehicle, but the case was adjourned for a special reasons hearing.

At the special reasons hearing Elliott chose to represent herself.

In relation to her no comment interview, she said: "I was more than happy to have told the truth in the interview - but I just believed the lawyers. If I had been given better legal advice I would have just answered all the questions."

In relation to Mr Connis being injured, she said: "I went outside and went over and there was a lot of blood on his face.

"He was claiming he could not see, that he could not breathe and over time he began to claim that he was going to pass out. I asked if an ambulance had been called.

"My friend Daisy had phoned for an ambulance but 15 minutes went by and there was no sign of it coming.

"Brooklyn was only getting worse and again saying he was going to pass out. We phoned for an ambulance again and after some time it did not seem like it was arriving.

"With a head injury, all I know is that sooner the better getting medical care. It was quite clear he needed it.

"That's when I suggested that I drive him, as I was the only person with a car nearby. Everyone was in agreement. My friends would never let me get in the car if I was under the influence of alcohol but I believed that I was okay to drive."

Mr Connis also gave evidence at the hearing, confirming that he had been assaulted and spent 12 hours in hospital as a result. He said he was unable to see anything due to his injuries at the time, and was still having trouble with his sight now.

Mr Connis confirmed that an ambulance had turned up 5 minutes after Elliott had been arrested. He said he had not reported the assault to the police.

Daisy Moran, a friend of Elliott, also gave evidence that she had seen the assault. She described Mr Connis being punched in the face several times, which led to a lot of blood.

Miss Moran said: "We believed that Mia was not over the limit. In fact the ambulance arrived about five minutes later."

Miss Moran said it did not cross her mind to report the assault to the police.

Paula Grogan, prosecuting, drew the court's attention to the fact that Elliott had not sought emergency help for Mr Connis from the police officers.

Miss Grogan said: "If she was truly in an emergency situation where somebody needed immediate help would she have walked or ran right past a marked police vehicle, basically an emergency first responder.

"If there was an emergency situation she could have flagged the police down.

"Surely the first port of call would have been the officers in the mobile patrol that the lady went straight past? She does not take advantage that she has the officers there to ask assistance for the person she is telling you that needs assistance.

"When you have got police officers who are trained to deal with people in distress or being assaulted it just seems remarkable. It was not necessarily the emergency being suggested."

It would appear that police made some enquiries and could find no evidence that an ambulance was called for Mr Connis.

Special reasons legislation:

We have previously written an article about special reasons. In simple terms, there are a few situations where the law allows the court to give the defendant the benefit of the doubt in its sentencing of driving offences.

Briefly, in accordance with section 34(1) of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, the court does not need to impose either a disqualification or endorsement if it is satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that there are special reasons not to do so. Those special reasons must be directly related to the offence, rather than the individual circumstances of the offender (in which case exceptional hardship might be a consideration instead).

The Court of Appeal has determined that in order to constitute a special reason [R v Wickens (1958) 42 Cr App R 436 (CA)], the court must be satisfied that the matter:

• Must be a mitigating or extentuating circumstance;
• Must be directly connected to the commission of the offence;
• Does not amount to a defence in law;
• Be one that the court ought properly to take into consideration when sentencing the offence.

If the court finds there are special reasons it will impose a lesser penalty than it ordinarily would. This could mean imposing fewer penalty points, penalty points as an alternative to disqualification, a shorter period of disqualification or a discharge in place of a financial penalty.

The court's decision:

The first thing to bear in mind is that the civil burden of proof applies in special reasons cases - e.g. in order to find special reasons the court must be satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the four previously mentioned conditions are met.

The court's ability to make that determination depends on its willingness to accept Elliott's account that she believed Mr Connis needed emergency medical attention and the need was so great that she could not wait for the arrival of an ambulance. It is not uncommon for medical emergencies or perceived medical emergencies to form the basis of special reasons arguments and there is plenty of case law on the subject.

On the basis of what has been reported, it would appear there is no dispute that Elliott was very distressed and upset when the police saw her that evening. One of the officers, Inspector Danny Murphy, also recalled her saying something about an injured person at the time. This would certainly reinforce the suggestion that she was distressed at Mr Connis being injured.

It is possible that she was so focussed on getting back to her car, that she totally missed the police parked nearby. This was 2 am, so dark, and she was distressed, so maybe not thinking as clearly as she ordinarily would.

Three witnesses have said, on oath, that Mr Connis was assaulted and sustained head injuries - Elliott herself, Miss Moran and Mr Connis. They have commented on the amount of blood and the apparent deterioration in his condition. This reinforces the suggestion that Elliott thought he needed urgent medical assistance.

The same three witnesses have said that an ambulance attended the scene. This would reinforce the suggestion that Mr Connis's injuries were deemed a medical emergency at the time. Two witnesses, Elliott and Miss Moran, have mentioned the ambulance being called twice and delayed en route. This is contradicted by police enquiries that were unable to trace a call to the ambulance service; however, the fact an ambulance did attend suggests such a call was actually made.

The three witnesses have also said they discussed the decision for Elliott to drive Mr Connis to A&E; they all thought she was fit enough to drive and it was the most appropriate decision in the circumstances. This leaves little doubt that the perceived medical emergency was directly connected to the commission of Elliott's offence.

Elliott has said she went "no comment" in interview on legal advice. That is increasingly common and sounds entirely plausible to me.

It would appear, on the face of things, that all three witnesses have given a consistent account to the court. That being the case I can understand why the court has accepted Elliott's account.

A cynic might say "well, they're her friends - of course they would back her". Well, there might be an element of truth in that, but I really believe that when someone is giving live evidence in court - on oath and on the understanding that any deliberate dishonesty is a very serious offence - then their evidence should be taken at face value unless it is contradicted elsewhere. It should also be said that as far as the court is concerned the character and conduct of Mr Connis and Miss Moran is not in question.

The court having accepted Elliott's account, does it amount to special reasons? Well, considering each of the four previously mentioned conditions it probably does - and remember that "probably" is the only standard required.

Sentencing:

So having decided to accept Elliott's special reasons argument, the court can now sentence her for the offence of being in charge of a motor vehicle when the proportion of alcohol in her breath, namely 49 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath, exceeded the prescribed limit, namely 35 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath.

This is an offence under section 5(1)(b) of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The maximum penalty on summary conviction is 3 months' custody and/or a fine at level 4 (currently £2,500).

The primary factor in sentencing these offences is always how far over the limit the defendant is. Considering the relevant guideline in this case, it can be seen that Elliott's offence falls into the bottom category with a starting point of a Band B fine and 10 penalty points - in other words she was never likely to face disqualification in any event.

Taking special reasons into account, the court has decided to impose an absolute discharge - e.g. no fine, points or disqualification. Is that too lenient? Well, I can tell you it's a fairly standard outcome in these cases and happens daily in courtrooms across the land.

Of course if the prosecution believes it has a legal basis to appeal the decision, as opposed to just not liking it, then the usual avenues are open to it.

Conclusion:

If you've managed to read this far then you have my absolute admiration! What I hope to have done is raised a few of the extra considerations of the court, that the newspaper reports never seem to cover. These decisions are rarely black and white and I can understand why the colleagues dealing with this case have arrived at the conclusions they have.

Frustrated Worcester Pensioner Smashed Locked Police Station Door

A frustrated Worcester pensioner smashed the door of the city's police station when he found it was locked.

Antony Drakes, 69, of Edgeworth Close, Worcester, admitted criminal damage when he appeared in custody at Kidderminster Magistrates' Court on Monday, 17th July 2023.

He also admitted failing to surrender to the custody of Worcester Magistrates' Court on Thursday, 13th July 2023, where the matter was originally to be dealt with.

Criminal damage is an offence under section 1(1) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971. Criminal damage below £5,000 is a summary offence, with a maximum penalty of 3 months' custody and/or a fine at level 4. We have previously written a guide to the offence of criminal damage, which some readers may find of interest.

The circumstances of the offence, on the face of it, seem very straightforward.

Drakes has attended the police station to conduct some business at the front counter. As is increasingly the case, the front counter was unmanned and doors locked.

Having wasted his time and effort travelling to the police station, Drakes has vented his frustration on the glass door.

A warrant was issued for Drakes' arrest when he failed to attend court on 13th July, which is why he appeared in custody at Kidderminster. That being the case, he has already spent some time (perhaps more than a day, given it was the weekend) in custody.

Magistrates' decided to deal with the criminal damage matter by way of a standalone compensation order, which means there was no requirement to order a payment towards prosecution costs or surcharge.

It would appear that they have dealt with the failure to surrender by deeming the time served in custody.

Drakes was ordered to pay £500 in compensation to West Mercia Police.

Drunken Carlisle Women Tortured Parrot Before Breaking its Neck

A pair of drunken Carlisle women inflicted sickening fatal injuries on an African Grey parrot.

I am sad to report yet another distressing example of barbaric animal cruelty. The circumstances of this offence are particularly horrific, which I'd ask people to bear in mind before reading further.

Tracy Dixon, 47, of Warnell Drive, Carlisle, and Nicola Bradley, 35, of Welsh Road, Carlisle, each denied an offence of causing unnecessary suffering to a protected animal, but were convicted following trial at Carlisle Magistrates' Court on Tuesday, 18th July 2023.

Causing unnecessary suffering to a protected animal is an offence under section 4 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006. The maximum penalty is 5 years' custody and/or an unlimited fine on conviction on indictment; 12 months' custody and/or an unlimited fine on summary conviction.

Magistrates heard that Sparky the African Grey met her untimely demise in the most horrific of circumstances on Saturday, 30th July 2022.

Sparky's owner, former soldier Paul Crooks, had been given the bird as a present by a former partner. African Greys are renowned for their intelligence and Sparky was quite the little chatterbox, being able to sing along to the National Anthem and various television theme tunes.

Mr Crooks offered the women, who were friends of his, a lift back to his home after they were unable to get a taxi following a night out in Carlisle. Mr Crooks told the court that the pair were already drunk and continued drinking once they arrived at his home.

Once Mr Crooks had left the room the women proceeded to torture Sparky in her cage. They sprayed the distressed bird with Mr Muscle surface cleaner, shaving foam, Brasso, turpentine and gloss paint.

Sparky was then removed from her cage, hit with a tea towel and placed in the tumble dryer. The women had also tried to feed the bird to Mr Crooks' pet dog.

Mr Crooks described returning to find Sparky's lifeless body, devoid of feathers, hanging half in, half out her cage.

"She was just unrecognisable; had gone from grey to a wet black mess," he said.

Bradley and Dixon initially denied harming Sparky, but later admitted their actions to Mr Crooks.

"At that point I got very upset and started crying. I couldn't believe what I was hearing," he said.

When they were interviewed the woman denied inflicting the fatal injuries on Sparkey, pointing the finger of blame at each other.

Having considered the evidence before the court, Magistrates were of the opinion that both women were guilty of the offence.

Jennifer Wilkinson, Presiding Justice, said: "We are satisfied behind reasonable doubt that both defendants have acted together and are jointly responsible for causing unnecessary suffering to a protected animal, namely Sparky the parrot."

Magistrates took the view that their sentencing powers were insufficient, so sent the case to Carlisle Crown Court for sentencing. They also ordered a pre-sentence report to assist the Crown Court Judge.

Bradley and Dixon were granted unconditional bail until their sentencing hearing at Carlisle Crown Court on Tuesday, 22nd August 2023.

The behaviour of these two is absolutely deplorable. It is rare for the court to see such depraved acts of animal cruelty. One cannot imagine the terror Sparkey went through as she was systematically abused over the space of many minutes, if not hours. There is no doubt that the poor bird went through significant suffering prior to her death.

This is a case where there is only one right outcome - these two must go immediately to prison for a significant period of time. They must also be disqualified from the ownership of animals indefinitely. The court needs to send out the strongest possible signal that wicked animal welfare crimes attract the most severe punishment.

For reference, the relevant sentencing guideline can be viewed here. I don't think there is any doubt that this is a case of high culpability and greater harm, so category A1 (starting point 2 years' custody) on the guideline.

Update (29/8/23): Dixon and Bradley were sentenced at Carlisle Crown Court on 29th August 2023.

Wrexham Man Convicted of Owning a Dog Dangerously Out of Control

A Wrexham man has been fined after his dog viciously attacked another.

Liam Evans, 32, of Rosemary Lane, Rossett, was convicted of being the owner of a dog dangerously out of control when he appeared at Wrexham Magistrates' Court on Monday, 17th July 2023.

Owning or being in charge of a dog dangerously out of control is an offence under section 3(1) of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. The maximum penalty on summary conviction is 26 weeks' custody and/or an unlimited fine.

I have previously written a summary on dangerous dogs and the law.

Magistrates heard that the attack took place on a field next to Brynteg Library on Thursday, 19th January 2023.

Evans was exercising his XL bulldog when it took after an 11-year-old spaniel named Mojo being exercised by its owner, Christina Jones.

Justin Espie, prosecuting, said that the bulldog ran down the hill towards Ms Jones, taking hold of Mojo's head with its mouth.

The bulldog refused to heed commands to let Mojo go, with people coming to assist from a nearby community centre.

Mojo was left with injuries to his head, neck and ear, which needed veterinary treatment totaling £234. Police initially offered Evans the chance of a community resolution, but he failed to make good on paying the vet fees.

Ms Jones described Mojo as "the gentlest soul I have ever met" in a victim personal statement.

"It took three days to get him to leave the house on a lead and three weeks before I could take him out comfortably," she said.

"My heart pounds now if a dog approaches us."

Magistrates heard that Mojo was so traumatised by events that he actually snapped back at Ms Jones, causing an injury to her face.

Evans, who was unrepresented, told the court that circumstances meant he was unable to pay Ms Jones' vet fees.

He said: "Regarding the dog, she has since been put down.

"We tried training and I spoke to people online - before that point I had never had a problem with that dog.

"From that point her behaviour deteriorated and she was even attacking my other dog so I couldn't keep her, and I couldn't rehome her.

"I spoke to a vet and they advised the best option was to put her to sleep."

Evans reiterated his apology for the incident, saying it was something he could not condone or let happen again.

Magistrates fined him £246.

He was also ordered to pay £435 in compensation, £98 surcharge and £85 towards prosecution costs.

Letby Trial Jury Deliberations Continue into Second Week

The jury in the trial of Lucy Letby will continue its deliberations into a second week.

The jury of eight women and four men has spent 25 hours poring over the thousands of pages of written evidence and hundreds of hours of live evidence presented during the ten month trial.

Letby, a 33-year-old neonatal nurse from Hereford, stands accused of the murder of seven babies and the attempted murder of ten more. In total there are 22 counts on the indictment, as Letby is accused of attempting to murder some of the babies on more than one occasion.

The seventeen babies were being cared for on the neonatal unit of the Countess of Chester Hospital, at the time of the alleged offences.

Social media is abuzz with chatter about when the jury will return its verdicts. Indeed there seems surprise in certain quarters that deliberations have taken as long as they have. The jury has an immense task before it. It is difficult to imagine the weight of responsibility bearing down on its members' shoulders, facing undoubtedly the most important decision they have ever made.

At stake is Letby's future liberty. The allegations in this case, if proven, are so horrific that Mr Justice Goss will undoubtedly take the view that life must mean life. That will be an exceptionally long and arduous sentence for a young woman with an active mind. The jury has to get it right.

As it stands at the moment, the jury must carefully consider each of the 22 counts on the indictment and reach unanimous consensus on each. The bar needed to reach that unanimous consensus is, quite rightly, very high.

If, in considering each count, the jury is not sure of Letby's guilt then it must acquit. The jury could find her guilty on some counts, but acquit her on others. Alternatively, she could be convicted on all 22 counts, or acquitted on all 22.

The jury will not return its verdicts until all 22 counts have been considered and decided, which could take a considerable while longer considering the enormity of the task and level of confidence needed to make each decision.

There is no smoking gun in this case. The only forensic evidence of any significance is the fact that an abnormally high amount of synthetic insulin was found in the bloodstream of child F, who Letby is accused of attempting to murder. This is a case where the jury will need to draw its conclusions by weighing up probabilities. The probability needed to convict is very high, but it falls short of absolute certainty.

Unanimous verdicts is still the preferred option, but eventually the time will come when Mr Justice Goss will direct that majority verdicts will be acceptable. I would expect such a direction to be made towards the end of next week if the jury has been unable to reach a unanimous consensus by then. As all 12 jurors have lasted the distance, a majority verdict requires a vote of either 10-2 or 11-1.

Deliberations resume at 10.30 am on Monday, 17th July 2023.

Update (19/7/23): Due to illness, the jury did not deliberate on 17th-19th July 2023.

Update (20/7/23): Due to continuing juror illness, deliberations will not take place at all this week. They are now expected to resume on Monday, 24th July 2023.

The Jury's Out: Jury Considers Verdicts in Trial of Lucy Letby

The jury has retired to consider its verdicts in the trial of Lucy Letby.

The 33-year-old neonatal nurse stands accused of the murder of seven babies and the attempted murder of ten more. In total she is accused of 22 offences in relation to those 17 babies.

The alleged offences took place on the neonatal unit at the Countess of Chester Hospital between June 2015 and June 2016.

The trial, presided over by High Court Judge Mr Justice James Goss, began at Manchester Crown Court in October 2022.

The jury of eight women and four men will now spend the next hours and days considering the voluminous evidence put before the court.

At this stage the Judge will be seeking a unanimous verdict, but he may later direct that a majority verdict is acceptable.

Legislation requires that at least 2 hours is given before a majority direction can be given, but in a trial as lengthy and complex as this the Judge is likely to wait much longer. A majority verdict in the Crown Court can be either 10-2 or 11-1 when all 12 jurors are deliberating.

Once deliberations have started the jury is prohibited from receiving any further evidence. It can, however, ask the Judge for clarification and reminders.

In that eventuality, the Judge will discuss the request with the prosecution and defence advocates. The jury might then be returned for any direction or clarification to be given in open court.

When the jury will return its verdicts is anyone's guess, but given the weight of evidence it is likely to be days rather than hours.

I will write further once the jury reaches its verdicts.

Dishonest Hampshire Man Falsely Cried Rape

A dishonest Hampshire man falsely claimed to have been raped in a shopping centre toilet.

Liam John Harrison Evans, 29, of Junction Road, Totton, Southampton, admitted an offence of wasting police time when he appeared at Poole Magistrates' Court on Friday, 7th July 2023.

Wasting police time is an offence under section 5(2) of the Criminal Law Act 1967. The maximum penalty on summary conviction is 6 months' custody and/or a fine at level 4 (currently £2,500).

Shammi Duggal, prosecuting, told the court that Evans' partner contacted Dorset Police to report that he had been raped by a person known to him in the toilets of the Dolphin Centre, Poole.

In interview Evans said the perpetrator, who he was unable to describe, had approached him on a bus.

Evans also underwent a medical examination to secure any evidence of the alleged offence.

The police made inquiries with the bus operator and shopping centre, which threw up a number of inconsistencies in Evans' account.

Evans was arrested in August 2022 and admitted that he had fabricated his account.

Dorset Police said that significant resources had been allocated to the investigation of the phantom offence, at a cost of £3,611.44.

Mark Hensleigh, mitigating, told the court that his client had admitted the offence at the earliest opportunity and appreciated the severity of the matter.

He added that the man Evans false accused had never been interviewed by the police.

A pre-sentence report highlighted that Evans' deafness and developmental difficulties "significantly contributed" to the offence and his limited appreciation of the consequences.

District Judge Orla Austin was of the opinion that Evans' offence was so serious that only a custodial sentence was appropriate. However, she decided to suspend the period of custody.

Addressing Evans, DJ Austin said: "This was an investigation that involved 32 separate police officers and 102 hours of police time. It involved you making a false allegation of rape. You involved your current partner, and he made the original call.

"When you were questioned eventually you admitted you had made it up to get back at someone you were angry with on Facebook. A person who it appears had done nothing wrong."

Evans was sentenced to 12 weeks' custody suspended for 2 years, with the requirement that he completes 20 rehabilitation activity days.

He was also ordered to pay £1,000 compensation, £154 surcharge and £85 towards prosecution costs.

Birmingham Flasher Tried to Pin Crime on Big-Eared Twin Brother

A Birmingham flasher tried to pin his crime on his identical twin brother, who he described as having bigger ears.

Dean Kaboleh, 20, of Lansdowne Road, Handsworth, admitted an offence of exposure when he appeared at Birmingham Magistrates' Court on Friday, 1st July 2023.

Exposure is an offence under section 66 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. It has a maximum penalty of 2 years' custody on conviction on indictment; 26 weeks' custody and/or an unlimited fine on summary conviction.

Magistrates heard that Kaboleh struck as he was travelling on a train between Birmingham New Street and Gravelly Hill on the late evening of Monday, 1st May 2023.

He approached a 17-year-old male on the train and tried to engage him in conversation. Kaboleh then dropped his trousers, exposed his penis and began masturbating in front of the shocked male.

Magistrates were of the opinion that Kaboleh's offence was so serious that only a custodial sentence was appropriate.

He was sentenced to 26 weeks' custody.

Kaboleh was also ordered to pay £200 in compensation to the victim.

The investigating officer, PC Hale of the British Transport Police, said: "Kaboleh is a disgusting individual who preyed on the teenage boy for his own sexual gratification. He even claimed in interview that it was his twin brother who has bigger ears.

"I hope his prison sentence acts as a warning to sexual offenders - we will do everything in our power to put you behind bars.

"If you experience or witness behaviour on the rail network, I urge you to report it to us either by downloading the Railway Guardian App, texting 61016 or by calling 0800 40 50 40."

Moronic YouTuber Convicted of Newcastle Airport Bomb Hoax

A YouTuber who thought it was amusing to orchestrate a bomb hoax at Newcastle International Airport has had the smirk wiped off his face.

Garrard Ndela, 19, of Ellison Villas, Gateshead, admitted communicating false information in relation to a bomb when he appeared in custody at Newcastle Magistrates' Court on Wednesday, 5th July 2023.

This is an offence under section 51(2) of the Criminal Law Act 1977, which states: "A person who communicates any information which he knows or believes to be false to another person with the intention of inducing in him or any other person a false belief that a bomb or other thing liable to explode or ignite is present in any place or location whatever is guilty of an offence."

The maximum penalty for this offence is 7 years' custody on conviction on indictment; 26 weeks' custody and/or a fine at level 3 (£1,000 maximum) on summary conviction.

Magistrates heard that Ndela visited the airport on the morning of Monday, 3rd July 2023. In an effort to assist the Crown, he very helpfully recorded himself walking past several check-in desks whilst claiming to have an explosive device.

Security staff and police rapidly intervened to detain Ndela and bring his recording to a halt.

Magistrates were of the opinion that their sentencing powers were insufficient for such a serious offence. They duly sent the matter to Newcastle Crown Court for sentencing.

Ndela was remanded in custody until his sentencing at Newcastle Crown Court on Wednesday, 2nd August 2023.

Detective Inspector Steve Byrne of Northumbria Police, said the case serves as a warning for anyone who thinks this type of behaviour is acceptable.

"Carrying out a prank of this nature at an airport is an incredibly stupid thing to do and can come with a jail term of up to seven years.

"Ndela planned his controversial skit and was naïve enough to believe he could get away with it unchallenged. However, this reckless behaviour is in fact a criminal offence and not something the criminal justice system takes lightly.

"I have no doubt that his appalling actions will have alarmed staff and caused unnecessary distress to passengers and visitors - it is only right that he was detained and arrested.

"The fact he has pleaded guilty and admitted his actions in court speaks volumes and I hope our communities know we take these type of offences incredibly seriously.

"As the summer months approach, our airports and transport hubs will continue to get busier and see more people passing though and we will be working hard with our partners at Counter Terrorism Policing, the UK Border Force and airport security staff to ensure everyone has as smooth a journey as possible."

In my opinion, which I am minded to convey to the Sentencing Council, it should be a statutory aggravating factor when anyone records their commission of an offence with the intention of sharing it to an online audience.

You get far too many of these pound shop online "auditors" and "citizen journalists" peddling their immoral wares to their feckless audiences and whipping up copycat instances of public nuisance. They cause untold annoyance to law-abiding members of the general public and are a drain valuable public resources.

I would hope the sentence imposed on Ndela is one that conveys a very strong signal that such moronic criminality is completely unacceptable.

Maggots Rain Down Over South Tyneside Magistrates' Court

An infestation of maggots has disrupted proceedings at South Tyneside Magistrates' Court.

The coastal location of the South Shields courthouse means the roof is a popular nesting, resting and feeding place for sea gulls.

It is believed some birds have died and started to decompose on the roof, which has led to maggots falling through windows left open to ventilate the stifling hot courtrooms below.

Essential work on Wednesday, 5th June 2023 was reallocated to other venues across Tyneside, with custody cases heading to Newcastle Magistrates' and Crown Court on the opposite side of the river.

An HMCTS spokesperson told The Shields Gazette that the court would remain closed for the protection of the public until today, Friday, 7th July 2023.

One would hope the protection of staff working at South Tyneside Law Courts was also a consideration.