Jailed: Disgusting Llanelli DJ Who Urinated on Cancer Patient

A Llanelli DJ has been jailed for drunkenly urinating on a cancer patient he was standing next to in a gents toilet.

Leigh Brookfield, 40, of Dan Y Lan, Felinfoel, Llanelli, admitted an offence of assault by beating when he appeared at Llanelli Magistrates' Court on Friday, 29th December 2023.

He was sentenced at the same court on Thursday, 25th January 2024.

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.

The court heard that the offence was committed at Llanelli Tennis and Squash Club on the evening of Boxing Day.

The 40-year-old DJ, clearly the worse for wear in drink, went to use the gents toilet. He ended up using the urinal adjacent to 72-year-old Peter Barton and the pair engaged in general chit chat, which turned to the subject of Mr Barton having prostate cancer.

Brookfield feigned concern for Mr Barton, saying he was "sorry to hear" about his cancer. He then directed his stream of urine towards Mr Barton, who was left soaked up the back of his trousers.

As if Brookfield's actions weren't disgusting enough, he also filmed the incident and uploaded it to Snapchat, presumably for the "entertainment" of viewers.

So sickened were viewers of the footage that Brookfield faced an immediate backlash and was reported to the police.

Mr Barton only learnt of Brookfield's disgusting act when footage of the incident came to the attention of his son.

The court heard that Brookfield had three previous conviction for drink driving.

Robert Thomas, mitigating, said: "He is embarrassed and ashamed of what he has done. I think that comes across in the pre-sentence report. He is appalled at himself and makes an apology through the court today. He has pleaded guilty at the first opportunity.

Mr Thomas told the court that Brookfield had caring responsibilities for his 14-year-old autistic daughter and had another child on the way. He was living on benefits, having been deemed unfit for work due to a long-term back problem.

District Judge Mark Layton, sentencing, was of the view that the offence was so serious that only a custodial sentence was appropriate.

Addressing Brookfield, the Judge said: "It was an assault on a vulnerable victim. You were clearly mocking him while in drink."

Brookfield was sentenced to 14 weeks' immediate custody.

He was also ordered to pay £500 in compensation, £85 towards prosecution costs and £154 surcharge.

It's a tight-knit community around those parts, so Brookfield will undoubtedly face hostility beyond his time in custody.

Contempt of Court: Judicial Blinkers and Earmuffs

A few weeks ago I was sitting as a winger in the remand court when one of the defendants became unruly.

I always enjoy the remand court as it gives such a wide variety of work. I also like the additional level of challenge posed by the rapid assimilation of information and decision making.

Just like Forrest Gump's imaginary box of chocolates, you never quite know what you're going to get in the remand court. It depends how badly behaved the local criminals have allegedly been, plus how proactive the local police have been.

I was sitting at one of our smaller and quieter venues. On a typical day this court might have 5 or 6 overnight cases to deal with, plus a few other previously-listed bits and bobs for later in the afternoon. 

This is one of the quieter backwaters of the English criminal justice system. Think a cross between Emmerdale and Howards' Way and you'll not be too far off the mark.

This day was unusually busy as additional custody cases were being bussed in due to a shortage of cell capacity at a neighbouring court.

It was also unusual in that we had someone wanted on a probation warrant hand them self in to the court. We also had a shiny new CPS prosecutor who had only done a couple of previous remand courts.

Anyway, we were still dealing with custody cases at 1.30 pm, which is almost unheard of at this particular court. Our next customer, who I'll call Mr Black for sake of argument, was led into the glass-fronted dock at the side of the courtroom.

Mr Black, who had been bussed in from the other court, had been arrested on warrant. He was a bit miffed by that because he had actually attended court for a trial the previous day, but the police had been lying in wait for him.

Showing a stunning lack of foresight, the officers arrested Mr Black on his way into the court building instead of waiting for the trial to be concluded. That was another ineffective trial for the number crunchers to contend with.

By the time Mr Black washed up on our shores there was another charge against his name - an alleged breach of a DVPO.

The shiny new CPS prosecutor, Miss Green we'll call her, rose to her feet to address the court on the circumstances leading to Mr Black's arrest.

She explained that he had failed to attend yet another nearby court for sentencing in relation to an offence of criminal damage.

Outlining the facts, Miss Green said that Mr Black had attended the property of his on/off partner, Miss Pink, kicked a hole in the front door and put the windows out.

He had admitted the offence, but sentencing had been adjourned for reports. A warrant was issued when he failed to attend for sentencing.

It was evident that Mr Black was taking umbrage at Miss Green's account, muttering under his breath and throwing in the odd "you're a fucking liar" and "those bastards (the police) are out to get me" for good measure.

Mr Black's solicitor, who I'll call Mr Grey, had been unsuccessful in efforts to muzzle his client. Realising that Mr Black's conduct was perhaps not endearing him to the Bench, Mr Grey was beginning to look a bit sheepish.

The PJ asked Miss Green to resume her seat and addressed Mr Black in the dock: "Mr Black, we need to hear what the prosecutor is saying. If you continue to disrupt the court, I will have to send you back down to the cells".

Miss Green, who was coping admirably but beginning to look flustered, returned to her feet and continued to outline the facts of the criminal damage.

She read out Miss Pink's victim personal statement, which said she didn't want anything to do with Mr Black and was terrified of him.

"She's a fucking liar", exclaimed Mr Black.

"She's never said that to me. The bitch is making it all up."

With that the PJ turned again to Mr Black, saying: "I have already warned you about disrupting the court. As you've continued, you can now go back to the cells.

"Officer, please take Mr Black away."

As he was led out of the courtroom, Mr Black stuck his head back around the door frame and announced: "You're a fucking c**t too. This is a stitch-up. You're only believing her."

The PJ then addressed the Legal Advisor, saying he was dissatisfied with Mr Black's conduct and seeking advice on how it could be dealt with. The reply came that the court might take the view that Mr Black was in contempt and deal with him accordingly, but that would need to wait until the afternoon.

The Bench proceeded to sentence Mr Black on the criminal damage matter.

In relation to the DVPO breach, Mr Black openly admitted breaching the order, which had been made by another court only a few days earlier.

It was a particularly flagrant breach and Mr Black, as you may have already deduced, was no stranger to the criminal justice system or breaching orders of the court.

The police prosecutor, Miss Scarlett, outlined the circumstances of the offence. She said that police had received reports that Mr Black had attended the property of Miss Pink and talked his way inside.

This was in direct contravention of the order, which forbid him from contacting Miss Pink or attending her property.

Officers attended the property and found Mr Black hiding in an upstairs wardrobe. Mr Black had been abusive and resisted arrest.

Mr Grey rose to his feet and explained that Miss Pink had willingly let his client inside the property and that he was seeking reconciliation with her. He asked us to consider a fine.

Given Mr Black's willful non-compliance and flagrant disregard for the order, we duly sentenced him to 2 months' custody.

That afternoon we considered what to do over Mr Black's earlier outburst. We were the only Bench, so would have had to deal with the matter ourselves. After much discussion it was decided that although Mr Black had crossed the line, returning him to the courtroom would further inflame the situation.

As he was going to prison anyway, we decided the best course of action, given the circumstances, was to draw a line under the matter.

Hopefully it'll be a normal day dealing with shop thieves and trout ticklers next time.

Cumbrian Woman Convicted After Dog Bit Delivery Driver's Hand in Letterbox

The dog of a Cumbrian woman bit the hand of a delivery driver posting a package through her letterbox.

Paula Dobinson, 54, of Harrington Road, Workington, admitted an offence of being the owner of a dog dangerously out of control when she appeared recently at West Cumbria Magistrates' Court.

Being the owner or otherwise 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 is 26 weeks' custody and/or an unlimited fine on summary conviction; 5 years' custody and/or an unlimited fine on conviction on indictment.

I have previously written about dangerous dogs and the law.

Magistrates' heard that the driver was injured as he delivered to Dobinson's address on Wednesday, 20th September 2023.

Pamela Fee, prosecuting, told the court that the driver was struggling to push the package through the letterbox so had to use both hands.

He then heard a dog approaching behind the door and felt a bite on his right index finger. Dobison had been asleep inside the property at the time.

The court heard that the driver, who required surgery at Cumberland Royal Infirmary, had to push a piece of bone back into his finger.

In these circumstances, with a person being injured, an aggravated offence has been committed. 

That being the case Ms Fee reminded Magistrates that under section 4(1)(a) of the Act, the court must order the destruction of the dog - a 7-year-old German Shepherd by the name of Zeus - unless satisfied that it does not constitute a threat to public safety.

In his victim personal statement, the driver said that the incident had shaken his confidence and left him cautious of dogs.

He had adjusted his working routine to avoid coming into contact with dogs and will no longer approach a door if a dog is present.

However, the man said that he did not blame the dog in question and nor did he wish it to be destroyed. He said that he would like to see Dobison install a letterbox guard and warning signs at her property.

John Cooper, mitigating, said: "She tells me he is usually quite a loud dog. You would normally hear him first. She is very surprised about this.

"He is normally in the kitchen and is normally quite well behaved.

"It's just the nature of someone coming into the house. Fingers were put through the door. The man has had his hand through the letterbox with the parcel which is quite unusual.

"I can't think of a less culpable person that has been put through the court."

Magistrates adjourned sentencing pending the completion of reports and an assessment on Zeus.

Dobison was granted unconditional bail until her next hearing on Monday, 11th March 2024.

Having read the circumstances of this offence, assuming this article paints a complete picture, I have to say that I am rather surprised that colleagues have requested the input of the Probation Service in this case.

On the face of things, I would tend to agree that Dobison's level of culpability is very low. Even if she remembered that a package was due for delivery - and as she was asleep at the time I don't think we can automatically assume she did - I don't think she could have foreseen that:

(a) the driver was going to attempt delivery without somehow attracting her attention and requiring a signature;

(b) the driver was going to exert that much force on the package that his hand followed it all the way through the letterbox.

I also don't think Zeus' reaction to an "alien" object encroaching on his territory as his master slept is any reflection at all on her ability as a dog owner.

Considering the relevant sentencing guideline, I don't think anyone could disagree that the circumstances fall within "Category C - lesser culpability".

It would appear that the driver has sustained a significant injury to his finger and has experienced some degree of psychological harm as a result. If the Bench is of the view that his physical injury and/or psychological harm is serious, then they could view the offence as being "Category 1" in terms harm.

If they have arrived at that view, which I would disagree with (as you might have guessed), I would ask them to consider the level of harm in a case where a dog has mauled a person and bitten them multiple times on their limbs, torso or face. Painful as the driver's injuries may have been, there is no way they are as serious as those I have just described.

I would be inclined to view this offence as "Category 2" in terms of harm, which would give a starting point of a Band C fine and a range between a Band B fine and high level community order.

In the absence of any unreported aggravating factors I would be inclined to impose a fine, even if that meant stepping outside the guidelines slightly. I would not contemplate for one moment the making of a destruction order.

I'll update this article after Dobison is sentenced.

Police Requiring Name and Address: Section 50 of the Police Reform Act 2002

Generally speaking, no-one in England and Wales is obliged to provide their name and address to a police officer who asks for it.

A few notable exceptions are:

• If a person is suspected of an offence and refuses to give their details, that may well necessitate their arrest to confirm their identity and assist in any investigation;
• If a person is driving a motor vehicle on a road or other public place, then a police officer in uniform can require the production of their driving licence;
• If a police officer in uniform has reasonable grounds to believe that a person is engaging in, or has engaged in, anti-social behaviour, then they can require that person's name and address.

It is that last exception, conferred by section 50 of the Police Reform Act 2002, which is the focus of today's article.

Section 50(1) of the Act states: If a constable in uniform has reason to believe that a person has engaged, or is engaging in, anti-social behaviour, he may require that person to give his name and address to the constable.

Section 50(1A) of the Act goes on to define anti-social behaviour as having the same meaning as in section 2 of the Antisocial Behaviour Crime and Police Act 2014, disregarding subsection (2) of that section, namely:

(a) conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person;

(b) conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person's occupation of residential premises; or

(c) conduct capable of causing housing-related nuisance or annoyance to any person.

Section 50(2) makes it an offence for any person required to give their name and address under section 50(1) to refuse to do so, or to provide a false or inaccurate name or address. The maximum penalty for either of these offences is a fine at level 3 (£1,000).

A reader has informed me that social media auditor "Auditing Britain" (as previously mentioned here), was recently charged with an offence under section 50(2)(a) in that he refused to provide his name and address to a uniformed police officer who suspected him of anti-social behaviour.

As there is a chance that proceedings are still ongoing, I shall not comment on the specifics - other than to say that based on my observations I think the legislation has been applied correctly.

You can view Auditing Britain's footage here (and in follow ups to that video).

Update (24/1/24): Auditing Britain, real name Reda Bouadi-Clifton, attended trial at Highbury Magistrates’ Court on Monday, 8th January 2024. 

He was cleared of an offence under section 50(2)(a) of the Police Reform Act 2002. 

Having watched the footage several times, the Bench concluded that the manner of his arrest was unlawful because PC Justice exceeded the powers set out in the legislation by demanding his date of birth in addition to his name and address. 

Counsel for Bouadi-Clifton made a half-time application that due to the unlawful arrest there was no case to answer. The Bench agreed.

Bouadi-Clifton will now be in a position to make a civil claim against the Met Police for assault and false imprisonment, which we'll no doubt hear all about on his YouTube channel. He'll also be able to sue them for his legal costs in defending the case. That'll be thousands more of taxpayers' money needlessly wasted thanks to police inefficiency.

My thanks to the reader who sent me this update.

Brighton Drug Addict Pleads for Custodial Sentence

A Brighton drug addict pleaded for a custodial sentence when she was sentenced for possession of an offensive weapon.

Susan Goodison, 44, of North Street, Brighton, admitted possession of an offensive weapon when she appeared at Brighton Magistrates' Court on Thursday, 1st June 2023.

She was sentenced by the same court on Wednesday, 17th January 2024.

Possession of an offensive weapon in a public place is an offence contrary to section 1 of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953. It has a maximum penalty of 26 weeks' custody and/or an unlimited fine on summary conviction; 4 years' custody and/or an unlimited fine on conviction on indictment.

Possession of a knuckle-duster, as in this case, is actually an offence in a private place as well, as discussed in our recent article "A Brief Guide to Offensive Weapons in Private Places".

Magistrates heard that Goodison, who was then living in the city's Regency Square, assaulted one of her neighbours on Tuesday, 2nd May 2023.

During the assault she brandished a cat-shaped knuckle duster, which she said she kept hung around her neck in case it was needed for self-defence.

The case had previously been adjourned for the preparation of a pre-sentence report, but for whatever reason one was never completed.

Linda Filby, mitigating, said: "She requests that you give her a short custodial sentence, she wants to go into prison to detox. She thinks that will be the best way.

"She bought the item from Amazon. I also express some concern that it was available online. She did not realise it was illegal and had it for self-protection.

"She wants to go into prison to detox because he has various problems with drugs."

At that stage Goodison, who was tearful in the dock, called across to her solicitor: "I am asking them to help me."

The Bench indicated that it was minded to deal with the offence by way of a community order, but Goodison said she would not cooperate with the Probation Service.

Having discussed the circumstances with their Legal Advisor, Magistrates proceeded to sentence Goodison, in the absence of a report, to a short term in custody.

Nigel Peacock JP, Presiding Justice, said: "We have explored the guidelines for this offence. We also have to decide whether you would cooperate [with a community order].

"It is with a heavy heart that the Bench is going to sentence you to custody for four weeks."

Goodison was also ordered to pay £85 towards prosecution costs and £154 surcharge.

She turned to the Magistrates and thanked them for their decision.

Finders Keepers? A Brief Guide to Treasure

Metal detectorists and other treasure hunters might dream about that one big find that will set them up for life, but what happens if they do stumble across a potentially valuable artefact?

Today, to coincide with Channel 5's new drama mini series "Finders Keepers", I explore the legalities of finding treasure (in England and Wales).

The relevant legislation is the Treasure Act 1996, which I shall refer to throughout this article.

I should begin by saying that no-one should be metal detecting or otherwise hunting for treasure unless they have permission from the relevant landowner. Similarly, they should not be removing any item found unless they have permission from the relevant landowner. It is a criminal offence to go metal detecting on any ancient monument in England or Wales, unless prior permission has been obtained from either Historic England or Cadw as appropriate.

Definition of treasure

Section 1 of the Act defines treasure in fairly broad terms. It includes:

• Any object, aged at least 300 years' old, that is not a coin and has at least 10 percent of its weight as precious metal (further defined as gold or silver);
• Any coin, aged at least 300 years' old, that is found with at least one other coin and has at least 10 percent of its weight as precious metal;
• Any coin, aged at least 300 years' old, that is found with at least nine other coins;
• Any object that would have been considered treasure trove prior to the commencement of section 4 of the Act;
• Any object, aged at least 200 years' old, that has been specifically designated as treasure by Ministerial Order.

Treasure does not include any unworked natural object or minerals as extracted from a natural deposit.

Ownership of treasure

Section 4 of the Act states that, subject to prior interests and rights, treasure belongs to either the Crown or the relevant franchisee of the Crown.

A franchisee is a body that has been granted rights to treasure trove by Monarchs of the past. The Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall are two such bodies, as are the Cities of London and Bristol. These bodies, rather than the Crown, have rights to any treasure found within their geographic boundaries.

Duty to report treasure finds

Section 8 of the Act requires that any person finding treasure notifies the relevant coroner of the fact:

• Within 14 days of the date of the find; or
• If later, within 14 days of the date on which they first believed or had reason to believe the object was treasure.

Failure to notify the coroner is an offence, the maximum penalty for which is 3 months' custody and/or an unlimited fine on summary conviction.

Rewards

Section 10 of the Act states that if treasure is to be transferred to a museum, the Secretary of State must determine whether or not a reward is to be paid.

If a reward is to be paid, the Secretary of State is to determine the treasure's market value; the amount of the reward; and to whom the reward is payable.

The reward may be payable to the finder; the owner of the land; or any person who had an interest in the land at the time of the find, or at any time since then.

Payment of a reward is not enforceable against either the museum or Secretary of State. In other words, if they choose not to pay a reward then it's just tough luck.

Derbyshire Wildlife Criminal Jailed for Stealing Peregrine Falcon Eggs

A Derbyshire wildlife criminal has been jailed for stealing peregrine falcon eggs from a nest.

Christopher Wheeldon, 34, of Wheatley Gardens, Two Dales, Matlock, admitted offences of taking the eggs of a wild bird and disturbing the nesting site of a protected bird when he appeared at Southern Derbyshire Magistrates' Court on Monday, 15th January 2024.

Wheeldon also admitted four offences of shop theft.

Taking the eggs of a wild bird is an offence under section 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. The maximum penalty on summary conviction is 6 months' custody and/or an unlimited fine for each offence.

Covert cameras had been installed at Bolsover Moor Quarry, the site of the peregrine nest, by RSPB investigators.

The court heard that heroin addict Wheeldon, whose employment includes tree surgery in addition to criminality, was recorded stealing the eggs on Sunday, 23rd April 2023.

The footage showed the father-of-two gaining access to the nest by abseiling down a cliff face. He was assisted by an accomplice, who remained at the top of the cliff, but has not yet been identified.

Lynn Bickley, prosecuting, said: "Just after 4 pm the peregrines can be seen and heard 'alarm calling' with the female on the nest turning her head and looking upwards.

"A green rope comes into view and Mr Wheeldon can be seen carrying a box and an insulated bag.

"He reaches into the nest three times, puts the eggs in the box and the box in the insulated bag.

"He then calls up 'pull' to someone who is above him. The two peregrines can still be heard alarm calling and remained at the site until 12.10 pm the following day."

Footage of the theft was handed to the police, who quickly identified Wheeldon as the perpetrator. A subsequent search of his property yielded the climbing equipment used.

Clare James, mitigating, said: "There is nothing I can say in relation to the offence in terms of mitigation. He abseiled down the cliff to get the eggs and he says he can't give an explanation why he did it himself."

District Judge Stephen Flint, sentencing, was distinctly unimpressed at Wheeldon's crimes.

Addressing the defendant, he said: "It seems even the birds are not beyond your thieving grasp.

"You may see them simply as eggs for profit but this causes damage to the environment and it is a deplorable thing to do.

"In your state, hanging off anything, whether it's a quarry wall or a tree, is not the best thing to do."

Wheeldon was jailed for 18 weeks.

Listening to the Judge's comments, it sounds like he absolutely has the measure of Wheeldon.

Officer Jailed for Disqualified Driving of Police Vehicles

A former Gloucestershire police officer has been jailed for driving police vehicles whilst disqualified.

Miles Caffull, 26, of Saxon Way, Ledbury, Herefordshire, admitted driving whilst disqualified when he appeared at Kidderminster Magistrates' Court on Monday, 15th January 2024.

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.

Caffull also admitted an offence of driving without valid third party insurance, which nearly always goes hand-in-hand with driving whilst disqualified.

The court heard that Caffull, who recently resigned from Gloucestershire Constabulary, was disqualified from driving under the totting up rule, having accumulated 12 or more penalty points on his licence within a 3 year period. The 6 month disqualification was imposed on 26th May 2023.

However, on the very same day he learnt that he was disqualified, the 26-year-old response officer drove his Kia Xceed motor vehicle to his place of work in Gloucester.

For the next month, despite knowing he needed to report his disqualification to his employers, he kept quiet and continued driving his personal and police vehicles. Only when news of his disqualification was published in the local newspaper, did he eventually come clean to bosses.

Owen Beale, prosecuting, said: "He made the decision to drive to and from work and whilst carrying out his duties as a serving police officer using marked vehicles on blue lights.

"He did finally report his disqualification to his sergeant on 20th June, the day the local newspaper reported that he had been disqualified from driving.

"It was only at that moment it came to light for Gloucestershire Constabulary."

Collin Phillips, mitigating, said: "He accepts he has been stupid and he doesn't understand entirely why he did what he did and what led him to do it.

"If he had reported his disqualification to his sergeant immediately, he could have been put on other duties. He has lost his job for no particular reason."

District Judge Ian Strongman, sentencing, described Caffull's offences as a "gross and flagrant" breach of the law.

Addressing the defendant, he said: "You had at least 12 points on your driving licence and as a serving police officer, you should have known better.

"You had plenty of opportunity to realise your offending was going to get you in deep water.

"It is a tremendous coincidence that it was the day the press wrote about it in the paper that you decided to tell your sergeant."

Caffull was sentenced to 12 weeks' immediate custody.

He was ordered to pay £85 towards prosecution costs and £154 surcharge.

He was also disqualified from driving for a period of 18 months.

Detective Superintendent Alastair Stenner, Gloucestershire Constabulary's Head of Professional Standards, said: "Regulations and the Code of Ethics, which every officer must adhere to, state very clearly that officers must report as soon as reasonably practical any occasion where they have been subject to a number of sanctions, including a road traffic offence.

"Clearly Miles Caffull knew he was taking an incredible risk by continuing to drive police vehicles during this time.

"He was flouting the laws he swore to uphold, putting the public at risk and bringing the Constabulary into disrepute every time he got behind the wheel.

"The sentence today reflects the seriousness of his offending and the disregard shown over such a long period.

"In this case the misconduct proceedings could not be completed until the court outcome. We will now look to fast track a gross misconduct hearing which will decide if the officer would have been dismissed if he was still serving.

"We are also reminding all officers of the very clear obligation on their part to report traffic offences internally and we will be reinforcing this message throughout the coming months.

"Officers are subject to re-vetting checks after a period of time and, in line with national policy, a data wash against national databases has recently been carried out in connection with all officers and staff to provide public confidence.

"Any information that suggests officers have not disclosed offences will be investigated and those officers subject to appropriate disciplinary proceedings."

A Brief Guide to Offensive Weapons in Private Places

A person cannot, as a general rule, possess an offensive weapon in a public place, but less well known is the fact that some weapons are even prohibited in private places.

Today I'll be taking a brief look at the legislation pertaining to certain offensive weapons in private places. These weapons, which are defined below, are particularly dangerous. They have the sole purpose of inflicting death or very serious injuries on another person.

It's worth noting that some items that would be considered offensive weapons in a public place, are not deemed as such in a private place. That being the case you don't need to hide all the knives currently residing in your kitchen drawer!

The relevant legislation is section 141 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, as amended by section 46 of the Offensive Weapons Act 2019.

This legislation applies across the whole of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland, but there is a slight variation between the jurisdictions.

Definition of an offensive weapon

For the purposes of section 141 of the 1988 Act, an offensive weapon is one which is described in the Schedule to the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) Order 1988. 

These are:

(a) a knuckleduster, that is, a band of metal or other hard material worn on one or more fingers, and designed to cause injury, and any weapon incorporating a knuckleduster;

(b) a swordstick, that is, a hollow walking-stick or cane containing a blade which may be used as a sword;

(c) the weapon sometimes known as a "handclaw", being a band of metal or other hard material from which a number of sharp spikes protrude, and worn around the hand;

(d) the weapon sometimes known as a "belt buckle knife", being a buckle which incorporates or conceals a knife;

(e) the weapon sometimes known as a "push dagger", being a knife the handle of which fits within a clenched fist and the blade of which protrudes from between two fingers;

(f) the weapon sometimes known as a "hollow kubotan", being a cylindrical container containing a number of sharp spikes;

(g) the weapon sometimes known as a "footclaw", being a bar of metal or other hard material from which a number of sharp spikes protrude, and worn strapped to the foot;

(h) the weapon sometimes known as a "shuriken", "shaken" or "death star", being a hard non-flexible plate having three or more sharp radiating points and designed to be thrown;

(i) the weapon sometimes known as a "balisong" or "butterfly knife", being a blade enclosed by its handle, which is designed to split down the middle, without the operation of a spring or other mechanical means, to reveal the blade;

(j) the weapon sometimes known as a "telescopic truncheon", being a truncheon which extends automatically by hand pressure applied to a button, spring or other device in or attached to its handle;

(k) the weapon sometimes known as a "blowpipe" or "blow gun", being a hollow tube out of which hard pellets or darts are shot by the use of breath;

(l) the weapon sometimes known as a "kusari gama", being a length of rope, cord, wire or chain fastened at one end to a sickle;

(m) the weapon sometimes known as a "kyoketsu shoge", being a length of rope, cord, wire or chain fastened at one end to a hooked knife;

(n) the weapon sometimes known as a "manrikigusari" or "kusari", being a length of rope, cord, wire or chain fastened at each end to a hard weight or hand grip;

(o) a disguised knife, that is any knife which has a concealed blade or concealed sharp point and is designed to appear to be an everyday object of a kind commonly carried on the person or in a handbag, briefcase, or other hand luggage (such as a comb, brush, writing instrument, cigarette lighter, key, lipstick or telephone);

(p) a stealth knife, that is a knife or spike, which has a blade, or sharp point, made from a material that is not readily detectable by apparatus used for detecting metal and which is not designed for domestic use or for use in the processing, preparation or consumption of food or as a toy;

(q) a straight, side-handled or friction-lock truncheon (sometimes known as a baton);

(r) a sword with a curved blade of 50 centimetres or over in length; and for the purposes of this sub-paragraph, the length of the blade shall be the straight line distance from the top of the handle to the tip of the blade;

(s) the weapon sometimes known as a "zombie knife", "zombie killer knife" or "zombie slayer knife", being a blade with:

(i) a cutting edge;

(ii) a serrated edge; and

(iii) images or words (whether on the blade or handle) that suggest that it is to be used for the purpose of violence.

(t) the weapon sometimes known as a “cyclone knife” or “spiral knife” being a weapon with:

(i) a handle;

(ii) a blade with two or more cutting edges, each of which forms a helix; and

(iii) a sharp point at the end of each blade.

Manufacture, sale and exchange of offensive weapons

In accordance with subsection 141(1) of the Act, a person is guilty of an offence if they manufacture or make an offensive weapon available to another person by selling, hiring, lending or otherwise exchanging it.

The maximum penalty, in England and Wales, for an offence under this subsection is 6 months' custody and/or an unlimited fine on summary conviction; 4 years' custody and/or an unlimited fine on conviction on indictment. 

Possession of offensive weapons in a private place

In accordance with subsection 141(1A) of the Act, a person is guilty of an offence if they have an offensive weapon in their possession in a private place.

The maximum penalty, in England and Wales, for an offence under this subsection is 6 months' custody and/or an unlimited fine.

Subsection 141(1C), applicable to England and Wales, defines a private place as somewhere other than a public place, school premises, further education premises or prison.

Statutory defences

Section 141 lists a number of statutory defences to an offence under subsection 141(1A), including:

• Where possession of the weapon is for the purposes of functions carried out on behalf of the Crown or of a visiting force;
• That the weapon is one of historical importance;
• Where possession of the weapon is only for the purposes of making the weapon available to a museum or gallery;
• Where possession of the weapon is by a person acting in the course of their employment or association with a museum or gallery;
• Where possession of the weapon is for an educational purpose;
• Where possession is for the purpose of theatrical performances, production of films or production of television programmes.

Absolutely Bladdered: Isle of Wight Drink Driver Blew Off the Scale

An Isle of Wight woman was caught behind the wheel four-and-a-half times the drink drive limit.

Beata Mazurek, 41, of Rooke Street, Newport, admitted driving with excess alcohol when she appeared at Newport (Isle of Wight) Magistrates' Court on Friday, 5th January 2024.

This is an offence contrary to section 5(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and has a maximum penalty of 26 weeks' custody and/or a fine at level 5 (unlimited) on summary conviction.

Magistrates heard that Mazurek was driving her Nissan Qashqai through the town of Ryde on the late evening of Saturday, 16th December 2023.

The vehicle came to the attention of police when they observed it swerving across the road.

Officers caused the Qashqai to stop. On speaking to the driver they noticed that she smelt of alcohol and had bottles of wine in the footwell.

Mazurek failed a roadside breath test and was arrested on suspicion of exceeding the prescribed limit. She later provided an evidential specimen of breath containing 154 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath, the prescribed limit being 35 microgrammes.

Such a reading - almost four-and-a-half-times the prescribed limit - is exceptionally high. The relevant sentencing guideline indicates a starting point sentence of 12 weeks' custody, with a range between a high level community order and 26 weeks' custody.

Mazurek, who appeared unrepresented, told the court she had had "a very difficult month".

She added: "I can't explain why I did it. It is something I have never done before."

Magistrates were of the view that a pre-sentence report was required prior to sentencing.

Keith Jones JP, Presiding Justice, told the defendant: "In all my years as a Magistrate, this was one of the highest readings I've ever known."

Mazurek was granted unconditional bail until she is sentenced at the same court on Friday, 16th February 2024.

Given the offence attracts a mandatory period of disqualification, she was also made subject to an interim disqualification.

Careless Brighton Drone Pilot Flew Into Concert Stage

A careless Brighton drone pilot flew his device into a concert stage, narrowly missing performer Fatboy Slim in the process.

Giles Dalby, 39, of Devonshire Place, Brighton, admitted allowing his drone to endanger a person or property when he appeared at Brighton Magistrates' Court on Thursday, 4th January 2024.

Article 241 of the Air Navigation Order 2016 requires that a person must not recklessly or negligently cause or permit an aircraft to endanger any person or property. Breaching this requirement is an offence under article 265(7) of the Order, the maximum penalty for which is an unlimited fine on summary conviction; 2 years' custody and/or an unlimited fine on conviction on indictment.

Magistrates heard that Dalby, who runs a local photography company, attended the Big Beach Boutique event at Brighton beach on Friday, 22nd July 2022.

Whilst there he recorded footage of the event by flying his DJI Mini drone over the 8,500 strong crowd and crashing into the stage.

Megan Attree, prosecuting, told the court: "DJ Norman Cook, also known as Fatboy Slim, was playing. At quarter to ten, the security were alerted that a drone had crashed into the stage, narrowly missing the crowd and the headline act.

"There was flight recording data on the drone, and it identified that the defendant had ignored multiple warnings.

"The defendant had placed the drone into sport mode, in which obstacle avoiding doesn't work, which increases the dangers.

"The footage shows a near miss collision with the crowd and performer. There was no damage or injury, but the risk was very real and very present."

The prosecutor added that Dalby, who had no previous convictions, had ignored multiple electronic warnings in an effort to gather his footage.

The 39-year-old, who appeared unrepresented, said: "I did not intend to put anyone in danger. I wanted to create a slow, cinematic appearance.

"I crashed trying to leave the area, looking to back out for an overview of the scene and finish with a wide view.

"It was an honest mistake that I will ensure will never repeat itself."

Raymond Brenton JP, Presiding Justice, told the defendant: "After what we have heard today, together with your previous good character and early guilty plea, we will deal with this by way of a fine."

Dalby was fined £576 and ordered to pay £85 towards prosecution costs and £230 surcharge.

The court allowed him to keep his drone.

Newcastle United Fan Handed Football Banning Order for Offensive Manchester United Taunts

A Newcastle United fan has been handed a football banning order after video footage emerged of him taunting Manchester United fans about the Munich air disaster.

James Edward Jeffrey Blake, 42, of Wantage Avenue, North Shields, previously denied (contrary to media reports) an offence of using threatening behaviour when he appeared at North Tyneside Magistrates' Court on Wednesday, 25th October 2023.

He admitted the offence when he appeared for trial at the same court on Thursday, 4th January 2024.

Threatening behaviour is an offence under section 4 of the Public Order Act 1986. It has a maximum penalty of 26 weeks' custody and/or an unlimited fine on summary conviction.

Newcastle United's EFL Cup match against Manchester City took place at St James' Park, Newcastle, on the evening of Wednesday, 27th September 2023.

Newcastle went on to win the match 1-0 - thereby knocking City out of the competition - thanks to a 53rd minute goal by Alexander Isak.

Steven Davies, prosecuting, said that Blake, who is well known to the courts, had been filmed by a YouTuber on the steps of St James' Park at the start of the evening.

The self-employed painter, who was clearly that drunk he didn't realise Newcastle were playing Manchester City, started to make a series of lurid comments about Manchester United players being killed in the Munich air disaster.

The footage was later uploaded to social media, where Blake's comments attracted widespread criticism.

Dave Parish, mitigating, told the court that his client was "disgusted and ashamed" of his behaviour.

Mr Parish said: "He realised that it was foolish and he should not have done it.

"He didn't know Newcastle United were playing Manchester United (sic) at that time. They are stupid comments he's picked up as a result of Manchester City."

Mindful that the Crown was also applying for a football banning order, Mr Parish said his client had no history of football-related offending.

He added that Newcastle United has already revoked Blake's season ticket as a result of his conduct.

Jane Barnes JP, Presiding Justice, said the offence was aggravated because children were present and he had been drinking.

She said the football ban was justified, and said: "You knew that it was being recorded and as a result of that, the recording was shown on social media."

Blake was fined £400 and ordered to pay £620 towards prosecution costs and £160 surcharge.

He was also made subject to a football banning order for the next three years.

Powys Man Stole Viagra

A Powys man stole Viagra tablets from behind the counter of his local Boots store.

Anthony Mark Stevens, 54, of Fronhir, Knighton, Powys, admitted an offence of theft when he appeared at Llandrindod Wells Magistrates' Court on Wednesday, 3rd January 2024.

Theft is an offence under section 1 of the Theft Act 1968. Shop theft of items under the value of £200, as in this case, is dealt with as a summary offence, with the maximum penalty of 26 weeks' custody and/or an unlimited fine. We have previously written an article on the legalities surrounding theft.

Magistrates heard that Stevens visited Boots on Wylcwm Place, Knighton, on the morning of Thursday, 16th February 2023, which was his 54th birthday.

Once inside, the hardened criminal walked behind the counter, helped himself to a £34.99 box of Viagra tablets, and walked out without offering payment.

Gareth Walters, mitigating, asked the court not to impose too stiff a sentence.

Mr Walters said: "He has no recollection of the incident and can offer no explanation as to why he did it.

"It was a low-level shoplifting matter, it was entirely unsophisticated, committed in broad daylight in full view of the shop manager."

Magistrates heard that at the time of the offence Stevens was subject to a conditional discharge imposed in relation to earlier incidents of shop theft and bilking.

Stevens was fined £80 and ordered to pay £85 towards prosecution costs and £34 surcharge. He was also ordered to pay £34.99 in compensation to Boots.

The Bench also resentenced the earlier matters, imposing fines of £40 for the shop theft and £40 for the bilking.

Wiltshire Disqualified Driver Reversed at Police Officer

A Wiltshire disqualified driver reversed at speed towards a police officer.

David Watkins-Rudman, 37, of Beech Avenue, Swindon, admitted driving whilst disqualified and assaulting an emergency worker when he appeared at Swindon Magistrates' Court on Thursday, 28th December 2023.

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. Common assault and battery on an emergency worker is an offence under section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, aggravated by the provisions of section 1 of the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018.

Magistrates heard that police attended an unrelated incident at Applegreen Petrol Station, Great Western Way, Swindon, on the morning of Saturday, 7th October 2023. Whilst there, the officer noticed a silver Audi TT parked up with the defendant, a disqualified driver, behind the wheel.

As the officer approached the Audi reversed towards him at speed, causing him to jump out of the way. The vehicle then sped away into the distance.

Watkins-Rudman managed to evade the police until the morning of Christmas Day, when he was found asleep in the vehicle and arrested.

In a victim impact statement the officer said: "The incident caused me to hold my breath from the panic that came over me, thinking that I couldn’t believe that this person was deliberately trying to hit me with the car, in a bid to get away. I've never had anyone drive at me before. I honestly thought that I was going to get hit by the car... I honestly believe that he was trying to physically run me over.

"I have been a police officer for 5 and a half years and deal with all kinds of incidents within my career and I have never felt scared before as I did at the moment that I saw the car reverse and manoeuvre in my direction with speed."

Having considered the circumstances, Magistrates were of the opinion that the offences were so serious that only a custodial sentence was appropriate.

Watkins-Rudman was sentenced to 21 weeks' custody.

He was ordered to pay £85 towards prosecution costs and £154 surcharge.

The court also disqualified him from driving for 3 years' 10 months' (the unusual duration to reflect his time and custody and existing disqualification).

PC Matthew Coates, who investigated the case said: "Our officers are out on patrol on the roads of Wiltshire day and night to keep people safe and apprehend drivers who pose a risk to other road users.

"It is completely unacceptable when police officers are assaulted while carrying out these public duties, and I am pleased to see the courts acknowledging this and ensuring these offenders are taken off our streets."

Leeds United Footballer Scores Speeding Ban

A Leeds United footballer has been disqualified from driving after racking up another speeding conviction.

Brenden Aaronson, 23, of Victoria Avenue, Harrogate, was convicted of speeding at Harrogate Magistrates' Court in September 2023.

The United States international player was sentenced by the same court on Wednesday, 3rd January 2024.

Magistrates heard that Aaronson, who already had ten penalty points on his licence, was clocked speeding on the A6040 Knaresborough Road on Sunday, 12th March 2023.

His Mercedes-AMG was recorded travelling at 37 mph on a stretch of road with a 30 mph speed limit.

The midfielder, who is currently on loan of Bundesliga team Union Berlin, was fined £666 and ordered to pay £90 towards prosecution costs and £266 surcharge.

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

Frustrations of Being a Magistrate: Episode 8: Three Hours' Journey for Three Minutes' Work

Happy New Year to you all.

I hope Christmas and New Year lived up to your expectations and wish everyone the very best of good health, happiness and success in 2024.

Over the Christmas break I've been helping out at a neighbouring Local Justice Area (I think those still exist, but plans are afoot to abolish them) to my own. For whatever reason this other area has really struggled to get boots on the ground, particularly over the Christmas and New Year period.

I received a phone call from the Rota Unit saying they urgently needed a PJ for an afternoon remand court in that area. I do not usually do half days, but given the special request I was more than happy to oblige.

I think I have previously mentioned that my "local" court is a 30 minute journey for me, but I often travel further afield for the greater variety of work. The court I was visiting on this occasion was a one-and-a-half hour journey for me. I like to be at court at least an hour early, which means by around 1 pm for an afternoon sitting.

Traffic was unexpectedly heavy, so I didn't actually arrive at court until around 1.30 pm. I touched base with the wingers, grabbed a quick coffee and fired up the laptop to see what work was listed for the afternoon. There was nothing. Not a jot. But this being the remand court, we needed to wait around for an hour or so just in case anyone was produced in custody.

The Legal Advisor arrived shortly before our scheduled 2 pm start time. He confirmed that there was nothing outstanding and it was a case of "hurry up and wait" until at least 3 pm. If we were lucky, he said, we might be able to deal with one of the pre-sentence report cases - e.g. a sentencing exercise - from the other court, but the defendant hadn't actually arrived yet. Cue further cups of coffee and retiring room Christmassy chatter.

By 2.30 pm it was pretty apparent that the defendant hadn't appeared for sentencing, despite being bailed to do so. We entered the courtroom and heard brief representations from his solicitor and the prosecutor. The defendant's solicitor said he'd had no contact with his client and couldn't offer an explanation for his absence. The prosecutor rose and asked for a warrant for the defendant's arrest and Bail Act offences to be laid. We duly obliged.

Cue further sitting around and chatter, until 3 pm when we decided to call it a day. I then had the one-and-a-half hour journey home in the opposite direction.

Three hours of travelling for three minutes of work.

That's why I don't tend to do half days!