Irresponsible Lincolnshire Drone Pilot Learns an Expensive Lesson

An irresponsible Lincolnshire drone pilot has learnt an expensive lesson after committing a series of flying-related offences.

Thomas Ling, 34, of Main Road, Brothertoft, Boston, admitted four offences contrary to The Air Navigation Order 2016 when he appeared at Boston Magistrates' Court on Wednesday, 28th August 2024.

He also admitted an offence under section 8(1) of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 2006.

Ling's ANO offences were:

• Flying without a valid operator ID on 25 occasions;
• Exceeding the maximum permitted height (150 m/400 ft above ground level) on 25 occasions;
• Flying beyond visual line of sight on 26 occasions.

Magistrates heard that between 1st March and 18th June 2024 Ling flew his drone in contravention of the ANO on 26 different occasions.

The offences, which involved Ling flying at heights of up to 12,178 feet, took place in the Boston area, resulting in disruption to police and emergency services helicopter flights and fast jet flights from nearby RAF Conningsby.

Police eventually caught up with the rogue pilot and seized his drone, a fixed wing model aircraft and associated equipment.

Ling was fined £200 for each offence (£800 total) and ordered to pay £320 surcharge and £85 towards prosecution costs.

Magistrates' also made a deprivation order in respect of the seized equipment, which will now be destroyed.

Kev Taylor, Chief Drone Pilot and Safety Manager, Lincolnshire Police, said: "Drones have so many great uses, but they need to be flown responsibly and legally. The regulations are there to ensure drones are operated safely without causing a risk to the public and airspace users.

"Ling's drone was adapted so that it could be flown at such high altitudes often flying between 7,000 and 12,000 feet. Lincolnshire airspace is congested; we have multiple RAF bases and civilian airfields in our county, including the Red Arrows, the Battle of Britain Memorial Flight, the Air Ambulance, private and commercial aircraft operating daily.

"Ling has shown a repeated and blatant disregard for the legislation and the safety of both the public and airspace users in Lincolnshire."

Suspended Sentence for Derbyshire Man Who Threw Objects at Nigel Farage

A Derbyshire man has been handed a suspended sentence for throwing objects at Nigel Farage during the general election campaign.

Joshua Greally, 28, of Damsbrook Drive, Clowne, Derbyshire, admitted an offence of using threatening behaviour with intent to cause fear when he appeared at Barnsley Magistrates' Court on Wednesday, 26th June 2024.

This is an offence under section 4 of the Public Order Act 1986. The maximum penalty on summary conviction is 26 weeks' custody and/or an unlimited fine. I have previously written a guide to the offence of using threatening behaviour.

Greally appeared at the same court for sentencing on Wednesday, 28th August 2024.

The court heard that the 28-year-old attended a Reform UK campaign event in Barnsley town centre on Tuesday, 11th June 2024.

Nigel Farage, the recently elected MP for Clacton and leader of Reform UK, was speaking from the top deck of an open-topped double decker bus on Eldon Street.

Greally was seen to reach into a litter bin and remove an object, later identified as an empty coffee cup, which he threw at Mr Farage. He then launched a second unidentified object towards the politician, before police moved in and arrested him.

Neither of the objects hit Mr Farage, who was filmed covering his face and ducking down for cover. The objects could be heard striking the side of the bus.

Mr Farage did not complain to the police, so Greally's prosecution was evidence led.

Greally had no previous convictions prior to the incident.

District Judge James Gould, sentencing, said: "Politicians know they will face robust opposition, but that must never spill over into violence or intimidation. That is not the pursuit of free speech, it is an attempt to silence voices of opposition."

DJ Gould noted that Greally's actions were planned with him taking the 40 mile journey from Clowne to Barnsley to take part in the demonstration. The Judge was of the opinion that Greally's offence was so serious that only a custodial sentence was appropriate.

Greally was sentenced to 6 weeks' custody suspended for 12 months, with the requirement that he completes 120 hours' unpaid work and up to 20 days' rehabilitation activity.

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

Criminal Behaviour Orders for Youths: An Exception to Reporting Restrictions

As mentioned in my earlier article about reporting restrictions on youths appearing in court, the identity of any child or young person involved in proceedings in the Youth Court is automatically protected by legislation.

Under normal circumstances section 49(1) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 prohibits the publication of any information that is likely to lead to the identification of any youth defendant, complainant or witness involved in proceedings. Such a restriction applies until the eighteenth birthday of the youth concerned.

Proceedings in relation to criminal behaviour orders are an important exception to this rule. 

I have previously discussed criminal behaviour orders. These orders are made in accordance with part 11, chapter 1 of the Sentencing Act 2020.

Section 332(8) of the 2020 Act states that section 49 of the 1933 Act does not apply. However, section 39 of the 1933 Act, which grants the court powers to prohibit the publication of certain matters, does still apply.

In simple terms this means that there are no automatic restrictions in relation to a youth offender, appearing before the Youth Court, in proceedings related to the making of a criminal behaviour order. The court can, however, still impose restrictions if it considers them necessary.

It is not common for the Youth Court to make a criminal behaviour order. In my time as a Youth Magistrate I have seen only one such application. On that occasion, we decided to impose restrictions protecting the identity of the youth concerned.

On Thursday, 22nd August 2024, a youth offender, Peter Thompson-Hine, 17, of Workington, was made subject to a criminal behaviour order by West Cumbria Magistrates' Court, sitting as a Youth Court.

The order, which lasts for two years, prohibits Thompson-Hine from touching or entering a motor vehicle/mechanically propelled vehicle that belongs to another, unless he is a passenger or has the express permission of the owner or person lawfully in charge of the vehicle.

Cumbria Constabulary would like to hear from anyone who suspects Thompson-Hine of breaching his order.

Becoming a Presiding Justice

As many readers will already be aware, a Magistrates' Court is correctly constituted when it has a Bench consisting of either a (Deputy) District Judge or at least two (lay) Magistrates.

In the case of Magistrates, all have an equal say in any decisions taken by the Bench. Under normal circumstances one of the Magistrates is an approved Presiding Justice, but the rules permit another Magistrate to temporarily step up if an approved Presiding Justice is unavailable for whatever reason. The Presiding Justice, who sits in the middle, is effectively the voice of the Bench. They are the person who conveys the decisions of the Bench and the reasons behind them.

I was listening to most recent episode of The Transform Justice Podcast yesterday. The episode had the title "Lay Magistrates - great equaliser or arcane institution?"

I am not going to delve into the finer details of the half-hour podcast, which is well worth a listen. However, I was struck by the comments of former Magistrate Robin Fenwick, who said that Presiding Justice was almost an honorific status given to more senior Magistrates based on their length of service.

That does not accord with my own experience of the system. I sit in an area where a former Bench Chair, who was elected as Bench Chair after only 5 or 6 years on the Bench (of around 200 Magistrates), was not an approved Presiding Justice. I am aware of a Deputy Bench Chair, who again is not an approved Presiding Justice, who has only 4 years' service.

In my own case, I was approved as a Presiding Justice after around 4 years on the Bench. At the time I was in my mid-30s, which was (and still is) pretty young in terms of the Magistracy. I was also in full-time employment.

In today's article I outline the process and training needed for approval as a Presiding Justice in the (adult) Magistrates' Court. Whereas previously it was a bit of a local affair, the Judicial College is now responsible for the training of Magistrates across England and Wales. That being the case, the process described below should be pretty similar across the board.

1. A Magistrate needs to have completed the following to the required standand to be considered for training as a Presiding Justice:

• Initial training (3 days, prior to sitting for the first time);
• Consolidation training (2 days, usually completed 12 to 18 months after initial training);
• First continuation training (1 day, usually completed 12 to 18 months after consolidation training);
• First appraisal (prior to consolidation training);
• Threshold appraisal (prior to first continuation training);
• Certain prelearning exercises in the "Becoming a Presiding Justice" workbook, as required by the JTAAAC.
• Observation sessions, as required by the JTAAAC.
• An application form.

2. The JTAAAC considers the Magistrates' application form. If satisfied, and there is a requirement to train new Presiding Justices, the JTAAAC will approve their training.

3. Attendance on Presiding Justice training (2 days, often regionalised and could be via MS Teams).

4. Mentored sittings as a trainee Presiding Justice (a minimum of 4 sittings with an experienced Presiding Justice who is trained as a mentor, each with written feedback).

5. Appraised trainee Presiding Justice sittings (2 appraisals, one from the well of the court).

6. Subject to satisfactory appraisal, JTAAAC approves the Magistrate as a Presiding Justice.

7. As a Presiding Justice, they will be subject to appraisal every two years (winger is every four years).

In an ideal world around half the Magistrates on a Bench would be approved Presiding Justices, but that can sometimes be difficult to achieve. In my own area I think we have around 30 percent Presiding Justices, which means virtually all of my sittings are in that role. I often travel further afield and sit in neighbouring areas for the same reason.

Presiding Justice is not a role for everyone. It requires someone who does not mind speaking to an audience, who will sometimes disagree with what they hear. It requires someone who does not mind being named in local newspapers as the "mastermind" behind contentious decisions, which invariably attract criticism from certain members of the public. For that reason many Magistrates are happy to sit in the relative anonymity and safety of the wing.

In my opinion one of the most important qualities of the Presiding Justice is the ability to clearly communicate the thoughts of the Bench. This means pitching your delivery in accordance with the needs of the audience - slow, steady, avoiding unnecessary repetition, jargon and keeping it as simple as possible.

I am a great one for saying things like "we're just going to nip out the back to have a chat about this" instead of "the Bench is going to retire to consider how we're going to sentence you for this matter".

In the retiring room the Presiding Justice leads the discussion and decision making process. What I usually do is bounce the conversation straight back to the less experienced of the wingers - "So John, what's your thoughts on this then?" I'd then turn to the more experience winger "Right Jane, so we've heard John's thoughts. What do you think about this?"

More often than not the wingers will be aligned with my train of thought. If not I will then put my two penneth in - "I think we can deal with this in a slightly different way. What do you think about X instead?" Often the wingers are in agreement with my suggestion, but if not I don't labour or argue the point. Even the closest of families or best of friends disagree sometimes. The wingers' opinions are just as valid as mine and if they both disagree then I accept, with good grace, that is the decision of the Bench. I do not mind disagreement at all - it leads for more analytical and informed decision making.

In all but the more straightforward of cases it is a good idea for the Presiding Justice to run the Bench's decision by the Legal Advisor. This allows the Legal Advisor to check the legality and appropriateness of the decision before it is announced in open court. What I must stress, again contrary to suggestions made in the podcast, is that decisions are entirely a matter for the Magistrates. Legal Advisors advise; Magistrates decide. As one of my regular Legal Advisors often remarks "It says Magistrates' Court above the door".

The Presiding Justice speaks for the whole Bench, irrespective of whether there has been divided opinion in reaching a decision. That occasionally means the Presiding Justice announces a decision that they personally do not agree with. If that's the case, they just suck it up and do it in good grace. What they never, ever do is say anything that gives the impression of a divided Bench.

Railway Byelaw Offences and Penalties

As regular users of the railway will be aware, a series of byelaws exist to facilitate the safe and efficient operation of the National Rail network.

These byelaws, originally made under section 219 of the Transport Act 2000 and confirmed under schedule 2 of the same Act, are enforceable by the Magistrates' Court.

For the purposes of these byelaws an "authorised person" is:

• any person acting in the course of their duties, who is an employee or agent of a rail operator; or
• any other authorised by a rail operator; or
• any constable acting in connection with their duties upon or in relation to the railway. 

You can read the full railway byelaws here.

Unless indicated otherwise, the maximum penalty for breaching these byelaws is a fine at level 3 (£1,000).

It is worth pointing out that byelaw 12 creates a statutory defence. It states that no byelaw offences are committed by a person acting in accordance with safety instructions displayed on a notice by a rail operator or given to them by an authorised person.

Below find a selection of byelaw offences. For brevity and convenience I have simplified the wording of some of these:

1. It is an offence for any person on the railway not to queue when required to do so by a notice or authorised person (Byelaw 1).

2. It is an offence for any person on the railway not to follow the reasonable instructions of an authorised person regulating a queue (Byelaw 1).

3. It is an offence, without the prior written permission of a rail operator or authorised person, to take onto the railway any item that might cause damage or annoyance (Byelaw 2).

4. Any person who, without the prior written permission of a rail operator or authorised person, takes onto the railway any item that might cause damage or annoyance, commits an offence if they fail to immediately remove it when directed to do so by an authorised person (Byelaw 2).

5. It is an offence for any person to smoke or create or carry any flame anywhere on the railway where there is a no smoking sign (Byelaw 3).

6. It is an offence for any person to enter or remain on the railway when they are in an unfit state due to intoxication (Byelaw 4).

7. If a rail operator has given reasonable notice that alcohol is prohibited on a train, it is an offence for any person to board or attempt to board that train with alcohol in their possession (Byelaw 4).

8. If an authorised person is of the reasonable belief that a person is in an unfit state to enter or remain on the railway due to intoxication, that person commits an offence if they fail to leave the railway when directed to do so by an authorised person (Byelaw 4).

9. It is an offence for any person to enter or remain on the railway if, in the reasonable opinion of an authorised person, they are in an unfit or improper condition (Byelaw 5).

10. It is an offence for any person to enter or remain on the railway if, in the reasonable opinion of an authorised person, their clothing may soil or damage any part of the railway or any other person or their property travelling on the railway (Byelaw 5).

11. It is an offence for any person to:

(a) use any threatening, abusive, obscene or offensive language on the railway;

(b) behave in a disorder, indecent or offensive manner on the railway;

(c)  write, draw, fix or paint anything on the railway;

(d)  soil any part of the railway;

(e) damage or detach any part of the railway;

(f) spit on the railway;

(g) drop litter or leave waste on the railway;

(h) molest or wilfully interfere with the comfort or convenience of any person on the railway.

(Byelaw 6).

12. It is an offence, without the prior written permission of a rail operator, for any person on the railway to sing, use any musical instrument, or use any other sound-producing device to the annoyance of any other person (Byelaw 7).

13. It is an offence, without the prior written permission of a rail operator, for any person on the railway to display or distribute any advertising material (Byelaw 7).

14. It is an offence, without the prior written permission of a rail operator, for any person on the railway to sell or offer any item for sale (Byelaw 7).

15. It is an offence, without the prior written permission of a rail operator, for any person on the railway to tout or solicit money, reward, custom or employment of any sort (Byelaw 7).

16. A person who has the written permission of a rail operator in relation to Byelaw 7 (e.g. singing, using an instrument, using a sound-producing device, advertising, touting, selling, offering for sale etc) commits an offence if they fail to comply with any conditions attached to that permission (Byelaw 7).

17. A person who has the written permission of a rail operator in relation to Byelaw 7 (e.g. singing, using an instrument, using a sound-producing device, advertising, touting, selling, offering for sale etc) commits an offence if they fail to produce a copy of that permission when directed to do so by an authorised person (Byelaw 7).

18. It is an offence to gamble on the railway, except for lawful gambling on premises authorised by a rail operator for that purpose (Byelaw 8).

19. It is an offence for anyone on the railway to use an escalator except by standing on it and travelling in the intended direction (Byelaw 9).

20. When there are ticket gates or barriers, it is an offence for any person to enter or leave the railway without passing through the gate or barrier in the correct manner, unless they have the permission of an authorised person (Byelaw 9).

21. It is an offence for any person on the railway to open any gate or barrier unless there is a notice indicating they can, or they have the permission of an authorised person (Byelaw 9).

22. It is an offence for any person on the railway to enter through any labelled exit, or exit through any labelled entrance (Byelaw 9).

23. It is an offence for any person on the railway to exit through any emergency exit except in a genuine emergency or when directed to do so by an authorised person (Byelaw 9).

24. It is an offence for any person on the railway to move, stop or operate any escalator other than by the labelled emergency procedure in a genuine emergency (Byelaw 9).

25. It is an offence for any person to enter through a train door until any person leaving via that door has passed through (Byelaw 10).

26. It is an offence for any person to be in any part of a train they are not authorised to be in (Byelaw 10).

27. It is an offence for any person to open a train door, or enter or leave any train, while it is in motion or between stations (Byelaw 10).

28. It is an offence for any person to enter or leave a train except by making proper use of the doors, except in a genuine emergency (Byelaw 10).

29. It is an offence for any person to enter or leave a train door during the automatic door closing process (Byelaw 10).

30. It is an offence for any person to obstruct or otherwise interfere with any automatic closing door, other than by the labelled emergency procedure in a genuine emergency (Byelaw 11).

31. It is an offence for any person to place, throw, drop or trail anything on the railway that is capable of causing damage or endangering the safety of any other person (Byelaw 11).

32. It is an offence for any person on the railway to activate any emergency or communications system without reasonable cause (Byelaw 11).

33. It is an offence for any person on the railway, without good cause, to disobey any reasonable safety instructions displayed by a rail operator (Byelaw 11).

34. It is an offence for any person on the railway, without good cause, to disobey any reasonable safety instructions given to them by an authorised person (Byelaw 11).

35. It is an offence for any person to enter or remain on the railway when there is a sign prohibiting their access (Byelaw 12).

36. It is an offence for any person to loiter on the railway when required to leave by an authorised person (Byelaw 12).

37. It is an offence for any person in charge of a motor vehicle, bicycle or other conveyance to use it on any part of the railway in contravention of traffic signs (Byelaw 13).

38. It is an offence for any person in charge of a motor vehicle, bicycle or other conveyance to leave it or place it on any part of the railway where it may cause an obstruction or hinderance to a rail operator or any other person using the railway (Byelaw 14).

39. It is an offence for any person in charge of a motor vehicle, bicycle or other conveyance to leave it or place it on any part of the railway otherwise than in accordance with any instructions issued by a rail operator or authorised person (Byelaw 14).

40. It is an offence for any person in charge of a motor vehicle, bicycle or other conveyance to park it on any part of the railway without paying any parking charge imposed by a rail operator (Byelaw 14).

41. It is an offence for any person to enter or remain on the railway other than by on foot, unless a notice is displayed permitting access by another form of conveyance or permission has been given by an authorised person. This byelaw does not apply to the use of wheelchairs or baby carriages, unless there is signage to the contrary or an authorised person gives instructions to the contrary (Byelaw 15).

42. It is an offence to take any animal on the railway without a valid ticket for that animal, if a rail operator requires carriage of the animal to be covered by a valid ticket (Byelaw 16).

43. It is an offence, without the prior permission of a rail operator or authorised person, for any person to take an animal onto the railway if, in the opinion of an authorised person, the animal may threaten, annoy, soil or damage any person or their property (Byelaw 16).

44. It is an offence for any person in charge of an animal to allow it to foul or damage any part of the railway (Byelaw 16).

45. It is an offence for any person in charge of an animal to leave it unattended on any part of the railway, except in a place specially designated for that purpose by a rail operator or an authorised person and only then for the shortest time possible (Byelaw 16).

46. It is an offence for any person to enter a compulsory ticket area on the railway unless they have a valid ticket. This does not apply if there were no facilities in working order for the issue or validation of tickets at the start time and/or station of their journey. It does not apply if the person was informed via a sign or authorised person at their starting station that they could travel without a valid ticket (Byelaw 17).

47. It is an offence for any person travelling on the railway to refuse to present their ticket for inspection when required to do so by an authorised person (Byelaw 17).

48. It is an offence for any person, without permission from an authorised person, to remain in any seat, berth or part of a train reserved for holders of a specific type/class of ticket, unless they have a valid ticket of the correct type/class (Byelaw 19).

49. It is an offence for any person travelling on the railway to alter a ticket with the intent that a rail operator might be defrauded or prejudiced (Byelaw 20).

50. It is an offence for any person travelling on the railway to knowingly use any ticket that has been altered with the intent that a rail operator might be defrauded or prejudiced (Byelaw 20).

51. It is an offence for any person to sell or transfer any ticket, except for an authorised person in the course of their duties or an authorised ticket vending machine (Byelaw 21).

52. It is an offence for any person to buy a ticket on behalf of another, with the intention of allowing the other to travel without having paid the correct fare (Byelaw 22).

53. It is an offence for any person to transfer or produce a ticket on behalf of another, with the intention of allowing the other to travel without having paid the correct fare (Byelaw 22).

54. It is an offence for any person reasonably suspected of breaching any of these byelaws to fail to provide their name and address when required to do so by an authorised person (Byelaw 23).

55. It is an offence for any person reasonably suspected of breaching any of these byelaws to fail to immediately leave the railway when required to do so by an authorised person (Byelaw 24).

Update: Wiltshire Lout Sentenced for Headbutting Youth on Bus

A Wiltshire lout has been sentenced for headbutting a youth who refused to share his mobile phone's wifi hotspot during a bus journey.

Wayne Hobbs, 50, of Welcombe Avenue, Swindon, admitted an offence of assault by beating when he appeared at Swindon Magistrates' Court on Wednesday, 10th July 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.

Hobbs appeared the same court for sentencing on Wednesday, 14th August 2024.

I wrote about Hobbs' offence in an earlier article. In the briefest possible terms, he headbutted a 17-year-old youth, who was a total stranger, because he refused to share his wifi hotspot during a bus journey. As if that wasn't bad enough Hobbs also threatened the youth with further violence when he left the bus.

In a victim personal statement, the youth said: "This incident left me absolutely terrified and it affected my mental health because people like him will be on the bus and will assault absolutely anyone."

The court heard that Hobbs has 57 previous convictions, including several for offences against the person.

Gordon Hotson, mitigating, told the court that Hobbs previously drank to excess and had been drinking on the day of the offence. Hobbs mistakenly believed the youth he assaulted was an adult.

Mr Hotson added that Hobbs was proud of getting himself clean from drugs and was looking forward to being reunited with his own children.

"He has no explanation for why he behaved in that way after a bizarre conversation," Mr Hotson said.

Having considered the circumstances, Magistrates were of the opinion that Hobbs' offence crossed the community threshold.

He was made subject to an 18-month community order with the requirement that he completes up to 30 days' rehabilitation activity.

He was also ordered to pay £500 in compensation, which presumably was given priority over prosecution costs and surcharge.

This was a very nasty offence - a totally unprovoked attack on a youth, involving a headbutt (considered a weapon equivalent), when the offender was under the influence of drink and has extensive previous for similar offending.

On the face of things, there doesn't appear to be many factors in Hobbs' favour and he could well have landed in custody.

That being the case, I would suggest that the Bench has taken a pragmatic approach to sentencing.

Kettering Man Caught Driving Hours After Being Disqualified

A Kettering man caught driving only hours after being disqualified has seemingly benefited from the current prison population crisis.

Cody Fox, 20, of Pagent Court, Kettering, admitted offences of driving whilst disqualified and driving without insurance when he appeared at Northampton Magistrates' Court on Friday, 2nd August 2024.

Magistrates heard that the 20-year-old had been further disqualified from driving on Thursday, 1st August 2024, having been caught driving whilst disqualified and without insurance on Tuesday, 2nd July 2024.

At around 8 pm on Thursday, 1st August, having been in court only a few hours earlier, police observed Fox driving a Ford Transit, again whilst disqualified and without insurance. He was duly arrested and presented before the court the following morning.

On that occasion, Fox having driven whilst disqualified for the third time within a month, Magistrates were of the opinion that his offence was so serious that only a custodial sentence was appropriate. However, for reasons that have gone unreported, they elected to suspend the custodial term.

Fox was sentenced to 8 weeks' custody, suspended for 12 months.

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

His disqualification would also have been further extended, although that has not been reported.

The Presiding Justice has noted that Fox's most recent offence was a "flagrant disregard" of the order of the court.

This is most definitely an offence where, under normal circumstances, Fox would have received an immediate custodial sentence. However, things being as they are at the moment the court was probably mindful that 8 weeks' immediate custody would equate to only 2 or 3 weeks behind bars, which could well have done more harm than good in terms of Fox's personal circumstances.

Circumstances really have thrown him a life line. Should he be daft enough to drive yet again whilst disqualified, I think immediate custody is inevitable - and it would probably consist the activation of his suspended sentence plus extra on top.

Greater Manchester Woman Took Baby Buggy to Migrant Hotel Protest

Many parents will be taking their children to the seaside or countryside this school summer holidays, but a Greater Manchester woman decided to take her baby to a violent migrant hotel protest instead.

Nevey Smith, 21, of West Street, Failsworth, admitted an offence of violent disorder when she appeared at Manchester Magistrates' Court on Monday, 12th August 2024.

Violent disorder is an offence under section 2 of the Public Order Act 1986. It has a maximum penalty of 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 a guide to the offences of riot and violent disorder.

Tess Kenyon, prosecuting, told the court that there was a large scale disturbance at the Holiday Inn, Oldham Road, Newton Heath, on the evening of Wednesday, 31st July 2024.

Ms Kenyon said: "Footage shows (Smith) throwing liquid from a bottle towards police officers who were trying to maintain order.

"This was after two people who the crowd believed were seeking asylum had gone into the hotel.

"She had a child with her in a stroller."

Rob Moussalli, mitigating, told the court that his client, who sobbed throughout the hearing, was remorseful for her involvement.

He said: "(Smith) was taking the child to her grandmother's house when she saw her auntie standing with some people near to the hotel and went to talk to her.

"Then people started shouting and she moved to the front of the group and her auntie went to the back with the child. She wasn't planning to do anything."

Mr Moussalli told the court that someone behind a line of police officers had shouted something towards Smith, which made her lose her temper. She had then thrown water in response.

Smith has no previous conviction.

Addressing Smith, District Judge Joanne Hirst said: "I am prepared to give you one opportunity."

Smith was granted conditional bail until her sentencing at Manchester Crown Court on Monday, 19th August 2024.

Brick-Hurling "I'm A Child" Darlington Lout Sentenced

A Darlington lout has been sentenced for hurling bricks at the police during disorder in the town last week.

Cole Stewart, 18, of Victoria Road, Darlington, admitted an offence of violent disorder at Newton Aycliffe Magistrates' Court on Wednesday, 7th August 2024.

Of the opinion that the lower court's sentencing powers were insufficient, District Judge Steven Hood sent the matter to Teesside Crown Court on Friday, 9th August 2024. However, a disagreement over the circumstances of Stewart's offence meant HHJ Francis Laird KC, Honorary Recorder of Middlesbrough, was unable to sentence him on that occasion.

The case was stood down until Monday, 12th August 2024 to allow the Crown and defence to reach a consensus, on which basis Stewart would be sentenced.

Violent disorder is an offence under section 2 of the Public Order Act 1986. It has a maximum penalty of 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 a guide to the offences of riot and violent disorder.

Stewart's offence, which was caught on CCTV, was described in my earlier article. You can also view the footage there. Briefly, the troublesome teen was seen to hurl several bricks at police during disorder in Darlington on the evening of Monday, 5th August 2024.

Noticeable from the footage is that Stewart is the only person, certainly at that moment in time, who was displaying any level of violence or hostility towards the police. There were a lot of onlookers who were present, but not active participants in the violence.

Waiting for an opportune moment, police rushed in to arrest Stewart. He was restrained on the ground and could be heard dishonestly crying out "I'm a child, I'm a child", clearly in the hope it would help his cause.

Barrister Gary Wood, for Stewart, asked the judge to be as lenient as possible with his client, who he said had experienced childhood mental health difficulties.

Mr Wood said: "The gravity of the offending up and down the country has been such that only immediate custodial sentences have been passed.

"I understand the court will wish to pass deterrent sentences and this offending does cross the custody threshold."

HHJ Laird described Stewart as being at the forefront of sustained violent disorder, which was intended to target a mosque.

The judge added: "Police officers were attacked. The Muslim community in Darlington was in fear for their own personal safety and the place in which they worship.

"The public in Darlington and the wider community are rightly outraged."

Stewart was sentenced to 18 months' custody.

Ealing Man Admits Racially Abusing London Bus Driver

An Ealing man has admitted racially abusing a London bus driver after footage went viral on social media.

Michael Mongan, 39, of Castle Road, Ealing, admitted offences of racially aggravated threatening behaviour and criminal damage when he appearing in custody at Uxbridge Magistrates' Court on Saturday, 10th August 2024.

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

However, section 31(1)(a) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 creates a racially aggravated version of the offence, of which Mongan has been convicted, which has a maximum penalty of 26 weeks' custody and/or an unlimited fine on summary conviction; 2 years' custody and/or an unlimited fine on conviction on indictment.

I have previously written a guide to the offence of using threatening behaviour, but Mongan's case is about as clear cut as it gets.

The court heard that the police were called to an incident on Coldharbour Lane, Hayes, shortly after midday on Wednesday, 7th August 2024.

A potential passenger, now identified as Mongan, was refused travel on a bus because he didn't have the means to pay for his journey.

Mongan was apparently aggrieved at the driver's decision, so decided to launch a tirade of racial abuse in his direction. He repeatedly referred to the driver as a "bastard" and "terrorist".

The angry 39-year-old then stepped close to the driver's partition and twice spat in his direction. He also thumped on the partition and challenged the driver to step out onto the pavement.

A passenger recorded footage of the incident. The 60 second clip spread like wildfire on social media, which quickly led to Mongan's identification.

Despite being a fairly short incident, it was very aggressive and no doubt made the driver and other passengers fearful for their personal safety.

Mongan was remanded in custody until his sentencing at Uxbridge Magistrates' Court on Tuesday, 13th August 2024.

Detective Inspector Jonathan Potter, of the Metropolitan Police's Roads and Transport Policing Command, said: "The bus driver who was racially abused and spat at by Michael Mongan was simply doing his job.

"He and all other staff who work across London's transport network have a right to do so in safety, free from unacceptable threats and intimidation.

"I hope the fast response from our officers sends a clear message that we will act to hold those who behave in this way to account.

"I'm glad Mongan has been swiftly brought to justice and will now face the consequences of his actions."

Update (13/8/24): Mongan has now been sentenced.

Norfolk Head Teacher Gregory Hill Jailed for Harassing Trainee

A Norfolk head teacher has been jailed for harassing a young woman trainee at his school.

Gregory Hill, 48, of Valley Way, Fakenham, was convicted of an offence of harassment without the fear of violence following a four-day trial at Great Yarmouth Magistrates' Court on Thursday, 18th July 2024.

He was also convicted of an offence of resisting a police constable in the execution of their duties.

Hill was sentenced at Norwich Magistrates' Court on Thursday, 8th August 2024.

Harassment without the fear of violence is an offence under section 2 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. It has a maximum sentence on summary conviction of 26 weeks' custody and/or an unlimited fine.

I described Hill's offences in my earlier article. Briefly, over a period of eleven months he made a series of unwanted advances towards a recently qualified teacher working at his school, Howard Junior School in King's Lynn.

Hill's behaviour turned more sinister when he eventually got the message that the young woman wasn't interested in a romantic relationship with him.

A second woman, who had worked as a teacher at one of Hill's former schools, told the court that he had once approached her with his flies down and offered to "unleash the beast". He had also told her: "I want your legs wrapped around me."

Hill was granted conditional bail following his conviction, but within a few days was remanded in custody for breaching his conditions.

District Judge Christopher Williams, sentencing, described Hill's convictions as a "significant and spectacular fall from grace".

He added: "Even now you fail to realise how wrong your behaviour was. You are an obsessive individual and you abused the power you held."

Hill was sentenced to 12 weeks' custody.

He was also made subject to a 4-year stalking protection order, which prohibits him from contacting the complainant or publishing comments online about her.

Update (16/5/25): Prompted by a recent comment by a member of the Gregory Hill fan club (see below), I have just discovered that the disgraced former headteacher has been in further trouble with the court since his July 2024 harassment conviction.

In October 2024 he admitted a further three offences of sending messages for the purposes of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety. These are offences under section 127 of the Communications Act 2003. You can read more about Hill's conviction here.

In January 2025, having only been released from custody a few days earlier, Hill posted photographs of his July 2024 victim online. He admitted a breach of his stalking protection order and was jailed for a further 6 months. Apparently Hill, who clearly couldn't lie straight in bed at night, told the police he was "not aware" of the existence of the order. You can read more about Hill's conviction here.

"I'm A Child, I'm A Child" Squeals Baby-Faced Darlington Yob Who Bricked Police

A Darlington yob squealed like a toddler when he was arrested for throwing bricks at the police.

Cole Stewart, 18, of Victoria Road, Darlington, admitted an offence of violent disorder when he appeared at Newton Aycliffe Magistrates' Court on Wednesday, 7th August 2024.

District Judge Steven Hood heard that the baby-faced lout was involved in disorder in the town on the evening of Monday, 5th August 2024.

CCTV footage caught him throwing several bricks at nearby police officers and seeming to celebrate when he found his target. He was identified by police spotters and arrested at the scene.

Body-worn video showed the moment officers charged towards the petulant teen and took him to the ground. Once detained he could be heard squealing and dishonestly telling officers "I'm a child, I'm a child".

Steward was remanded in custody until his sentencing at Teesside Crown Court on Friday, 9th August 2024.

Looking at the relevant sentencing guideline it would appear to be a category A2 offence, which has a starting point of 3 years' custody.

Speaking of Stewart's conviction, Assistant Chief Constable Richie Allen, of Durham Constabulary, said: "Cole Stewart attended the area on Monday night with the sole intention of causing serious harm to our community and their property. He engaged in vile and destructive behaviour and attacked the police officers who were deployed to protect members of the public.

"As we have previously said, we will not tolerate criminality and violent disorder in our communities. I reiterate to anybody who commits these types of acts, we will tirelessly look for you and deal with you robustly. This will always be Durham Constabulary's approach when dealing with incidents such as this.

"Our investigation remains ongoing, and we will strive for justice on behalf of our communities - they do not deserve to be intimidated by this behaviour."

Fortunately no officers were hurt due to Stewart's actions. I do find the police-assisted moderation of his behaviour amusing. One moment he's giving it the big "I am" to onlookers; the next he is losing the contents of his bowels inside his trousers.

Update (12/8/24): Stewart has now been sentenced.

Bigoted YouTuber Convicted of Inciting Racial Hatred

A bigoted YouTuber isn't quite so cocky tonight, having been convicted of inciting racial hatred during a livestream from a Stockport migrant hotel.

Aaron Johnson, 32, of Criterion Street, North Reddish, Stockport, admitted an offence of distributing a recording intending thereby to stir up racial hatred when he appeared in custody at Manchester Magistrates' Court on Wednesday, 7th August 2024.

Distributing a recording with the intent of stirring up racial hatred is an offence under section 21 of the Public Order Act 1986. The maximum penalty is 7 years' custody and/or an unlimited fine on conviction on indictment; 26 weeks' custody and/or an unlimited fine on summary conviction.

Johnson is engaged in the moronic pursuit of social media auditing, which I have previously written about. For anyone unfamiliar with this most odious of activities, the general gist is that an "auditor" attends a particular venue; deliberately makes a nuisance of themself with a view to attracting attention; films the resulting interaction; and uploads the footage to YouTube in the hope of making a few easy shekels.

I shall not identify Johnson's YouTube channel, other than to say it has around 21,000 subscribers - the majority of whom, I am sure, are equally moronic. The video from which his conviction arises was watched live by around 2,000 of his sheeple.

Johnson broadcast the 25 minutes of footage from a Southport migrant hotel on the evening of Monday, 5th August 2024. The video, which has now attracted more than 35,000 views, remains on his channel as he was arrested at the scene has not been home since (spoiler alert: and won't be for some time yet).

Doing the prosecution's work for it, the 32-year-old filmed himself snooping around the hotel in the dead of night, peering into guest's rooms through chinks in the curtains and shouting profanities through open windows. All the while he was delivering a stream of racist commentary to his live viewers.

A man of Asian appearance opened a ground floor window to see what the commotion was outside. Johnson greeted him "welcome to fucking Britain", before accusing him of sinister intent.

Returning to the front of the hotel Johnson prophetically told the camera: "I'm going to wait for the fucking police to turn up, because they will turn up."

On hearing the approach of sirens, he added: "This is the police. I couldn't give a fuck really."

For the remaining 10 minutes of the video Johnson continued ranting at the camera, directing racist abuse at YouTube commentators in disagreement with his criminal actions.

He returned to the rear of the hotel where he was confronted by a member of staff and a resident, who he directed further racial slurs towards. He point blank refused to leave the hotel property, saying: "Ring the police, I don't give a fuck... I'm a taxpayer, I pay for this, I'll do what I fucking want."

The police attended, identified Johnson as the subject of the complaint and arrested him when he refused to provide any details.

Having considered the circumstances, District Judge Jane Hamilton was of the view that the Magistrates' Court's sentencing powers were insufficient to deal with Johnson's offence.

Addressing Johnson, the Judge said: "You were taking pictures through the window of people who were trying to sleep and also made reference to the children who were murdered in Southport. That had nothing to do with asylum seekers or anybody else.

"The male who did that was born in this country. There was no reason whatsoever for this offence to occur."

Johnson was remanded in custody until his sentencing at Manchester Crown Court (Minshull Street) on Wednesday, 21st August 2024.

I would expect a significant custodial sentence to follow - and fully justified too given Johnson's horrific racist bile.

Update (22/8/24): Johnson appeared for sentencing before HHJ Maurice Greene on 21st August. It would appear Johnson thought he would represent himself at the hearing. The judge adjourned sentencing until 19th September, so that he could seek further legal advice and representation. Johnson is remanded in custody until that date.

Just Stop Oil Activists Deny Causing a Public Nuisance at Manchester Airport

Five Just Stop Oil activists have denied conspiracy to cause a public nuisance at Manchester Airport.

To cut straight to the chase the five, named below, were remanded in custody following their appearance at Manchester Magistrates' Court on Tuesday, 6th August 2024:

• Daniel Knorr, 22, of Second Avenue, Birmingham;
• Leonorah (Ella) Ward, 21, of Second Avenue, Birmingham;
• Noah Crane, 19, of Second Avenue, Birmingham;
• Indigo Rumbelow, 30, of Anthill Road, Haringey;
• Margaret Reid, 53, of Low Fellside, Kendal.

Intentionally or recklessly causing a public nuisance is an offence under section 78(1) of the Police, Crime Sentencing and Courts Act 2022. The maximum penalty is 26 weeks' custody and/or an unlimited fine on summary conviction; 10 years' custody and/or an unlimited fine on conviction on indictment.

Section 1 of the Criminal Law Act 1977 makes it an offence to conspire to commit this or any other criminal offence. Generally speaking, the maximum penalty for conspiracy offences are the same as for the offence the conspiracy relates to.

The court heard that Knorr, Ward, Rumbelow and Reid were arrested at Manchester Airport on the morning of Monday, 5th August 2024. They had in their possession a number of items that could be used to cause damage or disruption to the airport. Crane was arrested later in the day at his address in Birmingham.

On 5th July 2024 the airport was granted a High Court injunction that prohibits Just Stop Oil activists from entering, occupying or remaining on airport-related property without the prior consent of the relevant operating company.

Deputy District Judge Gary Garland remanded the five in custody until their next appearance at Manchester Magistrates' Court on Tuesday, 10th September 2024.

Weekend Violent Disorder Suspects Appear in Court

Protestors accused of violent disorder at the weekend have started to appear before the Magistrates' Court.

According to reports around 400 people were arrested in connection with disorder in places like Middlesbrough, Rotherham and Liverpool over the weekend. Many more can expect a knock on the door once they have been identified.

South Tyneside Magistrates' Court:

The following defendants appeared in custody at South Tyneside Magistrates' Court on Monday, 5th August 2024:

• Andrew Smith, 41, of High Street East, Sunderland, admitted an offence of violent disorder. He was remanded in custody until his sentencing at Newcastle Crown Court on Monday, 2nd September 2024.
• Shaun Doran, 48, of Villette Road, Sunderland, denied an offence of violent disorder. He was remanded in custody until his next hearing at Newcastle Crown Court on Monday, 2nd September 2024.
• Clinton Morrison, 31, of Saint Barnabus Way, Sunderland, made no plea in relation to an offence of violent disorder. He was remanded in custody until his next hearing at Newcastle Crown Court on Monday, 2nd September 2024.
• Josh Kellett, 29, of Southcroft, Washington, admitted an offence of violent disorder. He was remanded in custody until his sentencing at Newcastle Crown Court on Monday, 2nd September 2024.
• Brian Gilby, 27, of Hendon, Sunderland, admitted an offence of burglary, but denied an offence of violent disorder. He was remanded in custody until his next hearing at Newcastle Crown Court on Monday, 2nd September 2024.
• Leanne Hodgson, 43, of Holborn Road, Sunderland, admitted an offence of violent disorder. She was remanded in custody until her sentencing at Newcastle Crown Court on Monday, 2nd September 2024.

District Judge Zoe Passfield presided over these cases.

Liverpool Magistrates' Court:

The following defendants appeared in custody at Liverpool Magistrates' Court on Monday, 5th August 2024:

• Declan Geiran, 29, of Kelso Road, Liverpool, admitted offences of violent disorder and arson. He was remanded in custody until his sentencing at Liverpool Crown Court on Friday, 30th August 2024.
• Derek Drummond, 58, of Pool Street, Southport, admitted offences of violent disorder and assaulting an emergency worker. He was remanded in custody until his sentencing at Liverpool Crown Court on Thursday, 29th August 2024.
• Jimmy Bailey, 45, of Station Avenue, Ellesmere Port, denied an offence of violent disorder. He was remanded in custody until his next hearing at Liverpool Crown Court on Friday, 30th August 2024.
• Lloyd Killner, 35, of Burton Road, Lincoln, denied an offence of violent disorder. He was remanded in custody until his next hearing at Liverpool Crown Court on Friday, 30th August 2024.
• William Nelson Morgan, 69, of Linton Street, Walton, admitted offences of violent disorder and possession of an offensive weapon. He was remanded in custody until his sentencing at Liverpool Crown Court on Thursday, 29th August 2024.
• A 14-year-old male, who cannot be named for legal reasons, admitted an offence of violent disorder. He was granted conditional bail until his sentencing at Liverpool Crown Court on Thursday, 29th August 2024.
• John O'Malley, 43, of Cambridge Gardens, Southport, admitted an offence of violent disorder. O'Malley's plea is on a basis, which is yet to be agreed by the prosecution. He was remanded in custody until his sentencing at Liverpool Crown Court on Thursday, 29th August 2024.
• Gareth Metcalfe, 44, of Cambridge Gardens, Southport, made no plea in relation to an offence of violent disorder. He was remanded in custody until his next hearing at Liverpool Crown Court on Thursday, 29th August 2024.
• Adam Wharton, 28, of Selwyn Street, Kirkdale, admitted an offence of burglary. He was remanded in custody until his sentencing at Liverpool Crown Court on Thursday, 29th August 2024.
• Ellis Wharton, 22, of Selwyn Street, Kirkdale, admitted an offence of burglary, but denied an offence of assaulting an emergency worker. He was remanded in custody until his next hearing at Liverpool Crown Court on Thursday, 29th August 2024.

District Judge Timothy Boswell presided over these cases.

Sheffield Magistrates' Court:

The following defendant appeared in custody at Sheffield Magistrates' Court on Monday, 5th August 2024:

• Curtis Coulson, 30, of Water Slacks Close, Sheffield, denied an offence of affray. He was remanded in custody until his trial at Sheffield Magistrates' Court on Friday, 20th September 2024

Deputy District Judge Liam McStay presided over this case.

Teesside Magistrates' Court:

The following defendant appeared in custody at Teesside Magistrates' Court on Monday, 5th August 2024:

• Carl Holliday, 30, of Tankerville Street, Hartlepool, admitted an offence of violent disorder. He was remanded in custody until his sentencing at Teesside Crown Court on Friday, 2nd September 2024.

District Judge Marie Mallon presided over this case.

Hull Magistrates' Court:

The following defendant appeared in custody at Hull Magistrates' Court on Monday, 5th August 2024:

• John Honey, 25, of Park Grove, Hull, made no plea in relation to an offence of violent disorder; three offences of robbery; two offences of burglary; and an offence of criminal damage. He was remanded in custody until his next hearing at Hull Crown Court on Thursday, 5th September 2024.

District Judge Mark Daley presided over this case.

Public Order Act 1986: The Offences of Riot and Violent Disorder

For several days now there has been civil unrest on the streets of the UK.

Since last Monday's attack in Southport, there has been violent disorder on the streets of several UK cities including Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, Stoke, Sunderland, Hull, Bristol and Belfast.

The national news has been awash with images of shops being looted, cars being torched, windows being smashed and the police being pelted with bricks.

The Government is said to be making plans to fast track offenders through the criminal justice system.

As I understand it, no-one has currently been charged with riot. For reasons that will become apparent, it is often quicker and easier to secure a conviction for violent disorder, which seems to be the current direction of travel.

In this article I give a brief overview of the offences of riot and violent disorder.

These are offences under sections 1 and 2 of the Public Order Act 1986.

Riot:

Section 1(1) of the Act defines riot in the following terms: "Where 12 or more persons who are present together use or threaten unlawful violence for a common purpose and the conduct of them (taken together) is such as would cause a person of reasonable firmness present at the scene to fear for his personal safety, each of the persons using unlawful violence for the common purpose is guilty of riot."

The 12 or more do not need to use or threaten unlawful violence simultaneously and their common purpose may be inferred from their conduct - e.g. if they are all participating in the same protest.

Furthermore, no person of reasonable firmness actually needs to be present at the scene. The offence is made out on the basis that if such a person were present they would fear for their personal safety.

The offence of riot can be committed in a private as well as a public place.

The maximum penalty for riot is 10 years' custody and/or an unlimited fine on conviction on indictment.

Violent Disorder:

Violent disorder is very similar to riot, albeit with a smaller number of participants.

Section 2(1) of the Act defines violent disorder in the following terms: "Where 3 or more persons who are present together use or threaten unlawful violence and the conduct of them (taken together) is such as would cause a person of reasonable firmness present at the scene to fear for his personal safety, each of the persons using or threatening unlawful violence is guilty of violent disorder."

The 3 or more do not need to use or threaten unlawful violence simultaneously. Unlike to offence of riot the 3 or more do not need a common purpose.

Furthermore, no person of reasonable firmness actually needs to be present at the scene. The offence is made out on the basis that if such a person were present they would fear for their personal safety.

The offence of violent disorder can be committed in a private as well as a public place.

The maximum penalty for violent disorder is 26 weeks' custody and/or an unlimited fine on summary conviction; 5 years' custody and/or an unlimited fine on conviction on indictment.

In relation to violent disorder, the Court of Appeal has held (R v NW [2010] Crim LR 723) that being "present together" does not require any degree of co-operation between those who are using or threatening unlawful violence. They just need to be present at the same place and same time.