Canadian Bull Semen Expert Avoids Totting Disqualification

A Canadian bull semen expert has avoided a driving disqualification, after the court accepted it would cause exceptional hardship.

Exeter Magistrates heard that David Hawkins, 65, of Littletown Road, Honiton, Devon, was clocked at 80 mph on the A30 dual carriageway near Tedburn St Mary in December 2023. The road was subject to a 70 mph speed limit.

Hawkins already had nine penalty points on his licence, arising from three earlier speeding offences. The three further penalty points arising from this latest offence would ordinarily result in a disqualification under the totting up rule.

However, Magistrates heard that the (unique) nature of his job was such that he would be unable to carry the tools of the trade on public transport. It would also be a struggle to visit clients at their rural locations. This would result in a downturn in work, which would place the jobs of his employees at risk.

Magistrates were of the view that Hawkins' disqualification would result in exceptional hardship.

That being the case they endorsed his licence with 3 penalty points taking the total to 15 points, but allowed him to remain on the road.

He was also fined for the offence.

Hampshire E-Scooter Rider Jumped Red Light, Smashed Woman's Skull and Fled Scene

A Hampshire e-scooter rider jumped a red light, caused serious head injuries to woman and fled the scene seemingly without a care in the world.

I am absolutely incensed reading this story, so apologies if that is reflected in my words below. I am only human.

Joseph Pedelty, 34, of Anne Crescent, Waterlooville, admitted the following offences at a previous hearing at Portsmouth Magistrates' Court:

• Causing serious injury by careless driving: An offence under section 2C of the Road Traffic Act 1988, which has a maximum sentence of 2 years' custody and/or an unlimited fine on conviction on indictment; 26 weeks' custody and/or an unlimited fine on summary conviction;
• Failing to stop after an accident: An offence under section 170(4) of the Road Traffic Act 1988, which has a maximum sentence of 26 weeks' custody and/or an unlimited fine on summary conviction;
• Driving without insurance: An offence under section 143(2) of the Road Traffic Act 1988, which has a maximum sentence of a fine at level 5 (unlimited) - read more about driving without insurance. 
• Contravening a red traffic light: An offence under section 36 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, which has a maximum sentence of a fine at level 3 (£1,000).

He was sentenced at the same court on Wednesday, 23rd October 2024.

Magistrates heard that the collision happened on Goldsmith Avenue, Portsmouth, on the afternoon of Sunday, 14th January 2024.

Dash cam footage caught the moment Pedelty, who was convicted of drink driving back in 2021, rode his scooter through a red light light and straight into veterinary surgeon Raquel Delgado-Calo, who was using the pedestrian crossing.

Pedelty, who was thrown from his scooter, spent a moment dusting himself down before riding off from the scene, seemingly without a care in the world for the welfare of the seriously injured vet.

Ms Delgado-Calo was hospitalised for three days, took three weeks off work and suffered dizziness and the effects of concussion for months afterwards. In a victim personal statement, she told the court that she has ongoing anxiety about crossing the road.

Roni Pittman, mitigating, told the court that her client "did not see the seriousness of the incident at the time".

She added that he was "shocked and horrified" to hear about the injuries that Ms Delgado-Calo sustained and handed himself into the police as soon as he saw an appeal for information.

Ms Pittman concluded that Pedelty "accepts his actions" during the collision.

Magistrates were of the view that Pedelty's offences, when considered in the round, were serious enough to merit a community order.

He was sentenced to an 18-month community order with the requirements that he completes up to 20 days' rehabilitation activity and a 6-months' alcohol treatment.

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

It is not mentioned in reports, but ordinarily he would have had to pay prosecution costs (£85 for an early guilty plea) and surcharge (£114 for a community order). It is also highly likely he was ordered to pay compensation to Ms Delgado-Calo.

Right, here goes - hold on tight. I am absolutely furious reading this case.

From the dash cam footage it is abundantly clear that the traffic lights were red for several seconds before Pedelty rode through them. This was not a case of amber gambling. The car with the dash cam was clearly slowing down as it approached the red light, but Pedelty kept going at the same speed in total disregard of the signal before him.

Despite his apparent remorse now, it is pretty clear that he had no intention of stopping and deliberately rode through the red light - that is clearly very dangerous riding, which falls far below the standard of a careful and competent driver. It would also be very obvious to a careful and competent driver that such a manner of driving did fall far below the standard required. Ms Delgrado-Calo has clearly sustained injuries falling within the scope of grievous bodily harm.

All these factors considered, I am at a loss as to why this hasn't been charged as causing serious injury by dangerous driving instead of careless driving.

As for Pedelty handing himself in as soon as he saw the police appeal, well he didn't exactly have a lot of choice did he? The image was pretty clear and he was bound to be recognised. It was to his clear advantage to turn himself in before the police came knocking.

I'd also note that the appeal was a whole month after the collision took place. It's not as if during those intervening weeks he's had a pang of conscience and decided to go to the police unprompted.

As if the circumstances aren't horrific enough, we also learn that Pedelty has previous convictions for disregarding of the rules of the road. He's clearly the sort of chap who thinks he can just do whatever he likes.

Given the circumstances, I think he can consider himself pretty lucky that he's ended up with only a community order. I think most Benches, irrespective of the contents of any pre-sentence report, wouldn't have batted an eyelid about sending him to prison.

Pedelty's sentence will be served in 18 months, but Ms Delgrado-Calo's physical and mental injuries may well persist for a lot longer.

Enforcement of Fines

Fines are by far the most common sentence imposed by the Magistrates' Court, but occasionally they are applied at the wrong rate or defaulted on.

The Magistrates' Court is responsible for any application made in respect of fines after they have been imposed. That includes fines imposed by the Crown Court.

As there are a lot of fines there are also quite a lot of fines applications, so special court sessions are set aside for that purpose.

Remission of fines

By far the most common application is by offenders who have been convicted in their absence. In the absence of information to the contrary, the court will assume these offenders are in paid employment and pitch any fine accordingly. If it later transpires that they earn less than the assumed amount, then the court can adjust the fine to reflect their actual income.

This power is available under section 85 of the Magistrates' Court Act 1980. It is entirely discretionary, but the court will normally make such an adjustment if the offender goes to the trouble of making an application.

An example to illustrate the point: Suppose a non-attender was convicted of driving without insurance. This would normally result in a Band C fine. The court would assume they were in employment with an income of £440 a week. This would result in a Band C fine of £660 and a surcharge, at today's rate, of £264. This would give a total payable to the court of £924. They would probably also have to pay costs, but that is always at the discretion of the court.

If it later transpired that they were in receipt of benefits then their weekly income would be assumed to be £120. In those circumstances a Band C fine would be £180 and the surcharge would be £72. That would give a total payable to the court of £192. Again, they would probably have to pay costs on top of that.

In this example the court would remit the difference between the two values (e.g. £924 - £192), which would have the effect of reducing their outstanding balance by £732. They would only need to pay the correctly calculated figure of £192.

Variation of fine repayments

In theory fines imposed by the court are immediately repayable. I have older colleagues who reminisce about days gone by when the Presiding Justice would ask a just-convicted offender how much money they had in their wallet or purse and send them straight to the payment window in the court foyer. It wasn't a bad strategy, because it often deprived them of funds that would have been converted into drink or drugs later in the day.

Nowadays people tend not to carry much cash and courts tend not to have fine payment windows. That being the case the court usually adopts the pragmatic approach of ordering payment of fines by instalment. I'm a strong proponent of pragmatism, as regular readers will have no doubt noticed.

The court will take account of the offender's means and circumstances when determining a payment plan, but occasionally the offender finds they are unable to meet the repayments. In that situation it is absolutely imperative that they let the court know about their difficulties.

Section 85A of the 1980 Act allows the offender to apply to the court for a variation of the repayment plan. The court has the discretion to grant such a variation and usually will if the offender has gone to the trouble of making an application.

Defaulting on fine repayments

If an offender defaults on their fine repayments the matter is likely to be referred back to the court for further enquiries to be made.

Section 83 of the 1980 Act allows the court to issue either a summons or warrant to secure the offender's attendance.

The court will seek to establish the reasons for the default and make arrangements for payments going forward. This may well involve variation of repayment terms, as mentioned earlier.

If, and only if, the court is satisfied that the offender has the means to pay, but willfully refuses to do so, will it make a warrant of committal in respect of further default.

Prison is the absolute last resort, when all other options have been exhausted.

Fine enforcement case study

Fine enforcement is very much at the more mundane end of the spectrum, but occasionally an interesting case crops up.

This particular day a company was listed to appear before the fines court. It was having difficulty repaying a fine imposed by the Crown Court. The company, which was in the road haulage business, had been convicted of a serious health and safety breach resulting in the death of an employee. It had been fined £500k and the Judge had set payment terms of £50k a month.

It was a family business and one of the directors, a member of the family, turned up to represent the company. She explained that the company recognised its obligations to pay the fine and wanted to do so as promptly as possible, but circumstances meant it was struggling to get the funds together.

The director explained that there were health concerns in the family and the company's expenditure on fuel had increased by around £10k every month since the fine was imposed. She expressed concern that business was difficult enough without having to find an extra £50k a month. She was worried the company would need to make drivers redundant in order to make ends meet. The director was very genuine and visibly upset at the situation.

The court was quite satisfied at the account the director had given and was amenable to varying the company's repayments. The outstanding balance was around £400k, which the director indicated the company could discharge at a rate of £20k a month. The court accepted that offer, allowing two months for the first repayment as it was getting towards Christmas time.

The relief on the lady's face was evident to all. She seemed quite moved at the court's humanity. She had clearly anticipated that the court might dig its heels in.

The company, I am pleased to say, is still trading and didn't have to make any drivers redundant. It has now discharged its debt in full.

Artisan Cheesemonger Falls Foul to £300k Cheddar Scam

A London artisan cheesemonger has been scammed out of £300k worth of clothbound cheddar.

Neal's Yard Dairy, which has four shops the capital, said it was duped by a fraudulent buyer posing as a legitimate French cheese wholesaler.

The Southwark-based company dispatched 950 wheels of Hafod, Westcombe and Pitchfork Cheddar, but never received payment for the order.

In a statement on its website, Neal's Yard said: "Despite the significant financial blow, we have honoured our commitment to our small-scale suppliers and paid all three artisan cheesemakers in full.

"The company is now taking steps to address the situation to ensure both its financial stability and the continued development of the British artisan cheese sector."

These award winning cheeses in question originate from the Holden Farm, Westcombe and Trethowan's dairies, who are all immensely grateful that Neal's Yard has covered the loss.

Celebrity chef Jamie Oliver posted about the heist on his Instagram account.

Oliver said: "If anyone hears anything about posh cheese going for cheap, it's probably some wrong-uns.

"Get behind this, support our guys, it's the great cheese robbery."

The Metropolitan Police is currently investigating the crime.

Anyone who knows the whereabouts of 22 tonnes of the finest English cheddar is asked to get in touch.

South Yorkshire Woman Sentenced for Housing Dogs in Filth

A Barnsley woman has been sentenced for housing her three dogs in filthy conditions.

Kimberley Grant, 33, of Kingsland Court, Royston, Barnsley, was convicted of three offences of failing to ensure the welfare of a protected animal at Barnsley Magistrates' Court on Tuesday, 3rd September 2024.

Grant failed to attend, so the offences were proved in her absence and a warrant was issued for her arrest.

She was sentenced at the same court on Monday, 14th October 2024.

Failing to ensure the welfare of a protected animal is an offence under section 9(1) of the Animal Welfare Act 2006. It has a maximum sentence of 26 weeks' custody on summary conviction.

A couple of points worthy of note before I continue. As Grant failed to attend the 3rd September hearing she was convicted entirely on the basis of the RSPCA's evidence. As is regularly the case with these sorts of offences, the reporting has originated with the RSPCA and adopts the RSPCA's point of view.

There are quite clearly significant mental health issues at play here, which have barely been touched on in the reporting.

RSPCA inspector Vanessa Reid attended Grant's flat on 20th December 2023, following reports concerning the welfare of the dogs inside.

Inspector Reid was granted access to the property, which she found in a very bad state. Three dogs were housed there -a four-year-old female called Mieshka and her two nine-month-old puppies called Toffee and Price.

Inspector Reid's description of conditions at the property is distressing, but to summarise there was "an overpowering smell of faeces and urine" and the carpet covered with "trodden in faeces".

Grant said she could improve conditions within a fortnight, so Inspector Reid returned then and found the situation unchanged.

Two days later Inspector Reid made a further visit to the property, but Grant was not at home. The dogs could be heard barking inside. Peering through the letterbox she was hit by the same foul stench and could see the same putrid conditions within the property.

Inspector Reid attached a further improvement notice the door and was about the leave the property when Grant passed by, ripped down the notice and locked herself inside.

Inspector Reid shouted through the letterbox that the charity would seek a warrant if Grant failed to heed the instructions on the improvement notice.

On 1st February 2024, having by then obtained a warrant under section 23 of the Act, Inspector Reid again attended the Royston property, this time with the police. Once inside the property, Inspector Reid gathered evidence of the condition there. The police took possession of the dogs in accordance with section 18(6) of the Act.

The dogs were examined by a veterinary surgeon who confirmed, in their professional opinion, that Grant had failed to take necessary steps to ensure their welfare. On examination Mieshka had extreme pruritus and areas of alopecia, as a result of her severe flea infestation.

It is not mentioned in the report, but presumably Grant was lifted on warrant sometime shortly after her failure to appear on 3rd September. She has then been rebailed pending her sentencing on 14th October.

Details of her mitigation are a bit sparse, but the court heard that Grant had poor mental health. The 33-year-old was just about coping with Mieshka, but for some inexplicable reason allowed her to breed. Grant had found new homes for three of Mieshka's puppies, but had been unable to rehome Toffee and Price.

The court heard that Grant had not deliberately set out to harm the dogs, but circumstances meant she couldn't meet their needs.

Magistrates were of the opinion that Grant's offences were so serious that only a custodial sentence was appropriate. However, given her mental health difficulties, they decided to suspend the custodial term.

Grant was sentenced to 9 weeks' custody suspended for 18 months.

She was also ordered to pay £154 surcharge and £400 towards prosecution costs.

Magistrates also disqualified her from keeping animals for a period of 5 years.

The three dogs have been rehomed and are now said to be happy and healthy.

OnlyFans Model Admits Milkshaking Nigel Farage During General Election Campaign

An OnlyFans model has admitted milkshaking Nigel Farage following a campaign event in Clacton.

Victoria Thomas Bowen, 25, of St Osyth Road, Clacton, admitted offences of assault by beating and criminal damage when she appeared for trial at Westminster Magistrates' Court on Monday, 21st October 2024.

Assault by beating is an offence under section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. It has a maximum sentence of 26 weeks' custody and/or an unlimited fine. You can read more about this particular offence in my earlier article on the topic.

Professional attention seeker Thomas Bowen was filmed throwing a banana milkshake at Mr Farage as he left the Moon and Starfish pub on Tuesday, 4th June 2024.

The assault resulted in £17.50 worth of damage being caused to the jacket of a member of Mr Farage's team.

The immature influencer later told police that she "does not regret" throwing the milkshake. She added that she "does not agree with [Mr Farage's] political views" and acted because she "had the opportunity".

Thomas Bowen appeared for trial before District Judge Tan Ikram, the Deputy Senior District Judge (Chief Magistrate), earlier this morning. Despite "strongly protesting her innocence" at earlier hearings, she changed her plea to one of guilty.

In a victim personal statement, Mr Farage said: "This incident caused me concern as I have only been going about my job."

Addressing the defendant, DJ Ikram said: "You have pleaded guilty to, in my judgement, two serious charges.

"This was an unprovoked, targeted attack now on an elected Member of Parliament.

"I take a serious view of these offences. I am seeking a pre-sentence report which will consider all options for sentence."

Thomas Bowen was granted unconditional bail until her sentencing on Monday, 16th December 2024.

Asda Convicted of Offering 6-Month Out of Date Food for Sale

Retail giant Asda has been convicted of offering out of date food for sale at its Sinfin store in Derby.

Derby City Council trading standards officers inspected the premises on 15th July 2021. They found 18 different items of food for sale beyond its use-by date. Asda had been warned about the issue on two previous occasions.

Officers found two Nesquik Milk Slices that were 192 days beyond their use-by date. A third Nesquik Milk Slice was found 208 days beyond its use-by date. Other nasties on the shelves included sandwich filler, bacon, sausages and chicken.

Asda Stores Limited was convicted of 11 offences under section 19 of the Food Safety and Hygiene (England) Regulations 2013 following a trial at Southern Derbyshire Magistrates' Court on Wednesday, 16th October 2024.

In relation to a body corporate, the maximum sentence for each of these offences is an unlimited fine.

The basis of Asda's defence is not entirely clear, but it was rejected by District Judge Jonathan Taaffe.

Asda Stores Limited was fined £250,000 and ordered to pay £74,117.69 in prosecution costs and £190 surcharge.

Speaking of the conviction Victoria Rose, senior trading standards officer, said: "Customers should be able to rely on stores such as Asda to supply food that is safe to eat.

"It's my role to help protect the public when this is not the case, especially when some of these foods were aimed at children and found to be on the shelves six months past their use-by date."

Government Announces Increased Sentencing Powers for Magistrates' Court

The Government has decided to increase the Magistrates' Court sentencing powers (yet again).

As I'm feeling particularly lazy this afternoon I'll direct readers to my earlier thoughts on this.

The nub of the matter (my previous words): "By giving the Magistrates' Courts greater sentencing powers, it means more either way offences can by tried and sentenced at the Magistrates' Court. This should result in defendants being remanded in custody for a short period of time, thus relieving the strain on prison places."

The Rt. Hon. Shabana Mahmood MP, Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor, said: "This Government inherited a Criminal Justice System in crisis, with dangerously overcrowded prisons and victims waiting far too long to see justice.

"This marks a further step towards addressing the deep challenges in our Criminal Justice System, both reducing the record remand population in our jails and delivering swifter justice for victims."

The Statutory Instrument to increase sentencing powers is due to be laid on 28th October and changes will come into force on 18th November 2024.

The usual suspects are already wagging their fingers in disapproval at the plan.

In an ideal world the nation would have the inclination and resources to recruit enough District Judges and Recorders to handle the most routine of criminal cases.

Back in the real world, it doesn't - so it's pointless carping on about the mere existence of the lay Magistracy.

North Yorkshire Voyeur "Felt Horny" Filming Woman on Toilet

A North Yorkshire man told police he "felt horny" when covertly filming a woman using the toilet.

Andrew Simpson, 52, of Kingfisher Drive, Pickering, admitted an offence voyeurism when he recently appeared at York Magistrates' Court.

He was sentenced at the same court on Wednesday, 16th October 2024.

Voyeurism is an offence under section 67 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. It has a maximum sentence of 26 weeks' custody and/or an unlimited fine on summary conviction; 2 years' custody on conviction on indictment.

Magistrates heard that Simpson, who had no previous convictions, used a covert spy pen to record the intimate footage of his unsuspecting victim using the toilet.

Few details are provided of the actual offence, which may be due to the proximity of the victim - who has a statutory entitlement to anonymity - to the defendant.

The woman later told police that she felt "disgusted and dirty" by Simpson's sordid conduct.

Kevin Blount, mitigating, told the court that as soon as Simpson realised his filming had been discovered, he immediately confessed to the police and his employer.

He had been drinking heavily at the time of the offence, but had since managed to moderate his alcohol intake.

The court heard that Simpson, who has a "responsible, well paid job" has been employed by the same company for more than a decade. He remains in employment, despite the company's awareness of his crime.

Mr Blount added that Simpson had been diagnosed with autism, which affected his understanding of social cues.

Magistrates were of the opinion that Simpson's offence was so serious that only a custodial sentence was appropriate. However, given his prospects of rehabilitation, they elected to suspend the custodial term.

Simpson was sentenced to 17 weeks' custody suspended for 18-months, with the requirement that he completes up to 15 days' rehabilitation activity.

He was ordered to pay £154 surcharge and £85 prosecution costs. The court likely ordered the payment of compensation to the woman, although reports are silent on that point.

Simpson was also made subject to sexual harm prevention order for the next 7 years.

Nottinghamshire Driver Swallowed Unlit Joint

A Nottinghamshire driver swallowed an unlit joint when police pulled him over for running red lights.

Richard Burrows, 37, of Common Lane, Hucknall, appeared at Mansfield Magistrates' Court on Tuesday, 15th October 2024. 

He admitted driving when the concentration of a specified controlled drug, namely the cannabis metabolite THC, exceeded the specified limit, namely 2 microgrammes per litre of blood.

This is an offence under section 5(A) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and has a maximum sentence of 26 weeks' custody and/or an unlimited fine on summary conviction. The offence also attracts an obligatory disqualification.

Magistrates' heard that Burrows overtook a police vehicle and jumped a red light at the junction of Annesley Road and Derby Road in Kirkby. Quite appropriately the incident took place on April Fools' Day.

The manner of his driving attracted the attention of the officers, who required his vehicle to stop. Approaching the vehicle the officers noticed him putting something, now admitted to be a cannabis joint, into his mouth and swallowing it.

Burrows told the officers he was in a hurrying to get his girlfriend home as she needed to use the toilet. He said he had slowed at the junction and checked it was safe to proceed before disregarding the red lights.

Burrows provided a specimen containing 14 microgrammes of THC in 1 litre of blood - seven times the specified limit mentioned earlier.

Lucy Whittaker, mitigating, said: "He had not smoked any cannabis that day - the reason for his high reading is he had an old joint in his car from the evening before.

"At the time he occasionally smoked at night to relax before bed. He panicked, scrunched (the joint) up into his hand, and put it into his mouth and swallowed it.

"We will now never know what his actual reading was because he swallowed a whole joint. He didn't feel great after doing that."

Magistrates fined Burrows £180 and ordered him to pay £48 surcharge and £95 towards prosecution costs.

He was also disqualified from driving for 3 years.

Swindon Man Used "Legal" Criminal Identifier Spray on Bouncers

A Swindon man who discharged a "legal" criminal identifier spray at bouncers has again illustrated the perils of drinking on an empty head.

Karl Taylor, 32, of Ferndale Road, Swindon, admitted three offences of assault by beating when he appeared at Swindon Magistrates' Court on Monday, 7th October 2024.

Assault by beating is an offence under section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. It has a maximum sentence of 26 weeks' custody and/or an unlimited fine. You can read more about this particular offence in my earlier article on the topic.

Taylor, who hails from Cumbria, was ejected from a Carlisle bar for poor behaviour. Taking umbrage at the three bouncers, he proceeded to spray them in the face with a "legal" criminal identifier spray.

The trio were left with red staining to their skin and clothing, with one of them experiencing eye irritation when the red gloop struck him in the face.

If you please indulge me, I am now going to delve into the realms of personal opinion. If that's an issue, you might like to stop reading now.

I've been waiting to talk about this criminal identifier spray, Farb Gel, for a long time and now seems the ideal opportunity. The spray is marketed as a self-defence product and no doubt a considerable number of people buying it do so for that very purpose.

However, in my opinion a significant minority of those buying it do so to "look hard" and "get one over" the authorities by carrying around what appears, at first glance, to be a weapon.

I base that opinion on the knowledge that several social media auditors, including those supposedly learned in the law, routinely carry this spray as a prop to wave around whenever anyone challenges them. If you aren't familiar with the banal craze of social media auditing, then you might like to read my earlier thoughts on it.

By marketing this product as "legal in the UK" and an "alternative to pepper spray", the manufacturers do a disservice to members of the second category, some of whom are of the mistaken belief it can be used with legal impunity. That is certainly not the case.

The bouncers ejecting Taylor from the Carlisle bar were well within their rights to do so, using lawful physical force as the need arose. That being the case, he had no legal justification at all to spray them with Farb Gel. What possible reason could he have for marking them with a criminal identifier spray, when he knew their place of work?

District Judge Joanna Dickens was of the view that his offences were serious enough to merit a community order.

He was made subject to a 15-month community order, with the requirement that he completes 6-months' alcohol treatment, 12 days' mental health treatment and up to 15 days' rehabilitation activity.

He was also ordered to pay the statutory surcharge of £114.

Breaking News: Sunderland GP Admits Trying to Murder His Mother's Partner

A Sunderland GP has now admitted his audacious plan to murder his mother's partner.

Thomas Kwan, 53, of Brading Court, Ingelby Barwick, Stockton-on-Tees, changed his plea on the second day of his attempted murder trial at Newcastle Crown Court.

Kwan had previously admitted administering a noxious substance, but denied his intention was to kill 71-year-old Patrick O'Hara. 

In the prosecution opening Peter Makepeace KC outlined the extraordinary lengths Kwan had gone to in an effort to murder his mother's long term partner, Mr O'Hara.

Kwan's mother, Wai King (Jenny) Leung, 73, had changed her will so that Mr O'Hara, were he to outlive her, would be able to remain in the home she owned in St Thomas Street on the outskirts of Newcastle city centre.

This was a source of great consternation for Kwan, who saw Mr O'Hara as an obstacle on the path to his inheritance.

Months before the audacious murder plan was put into action, Kwan began researching and sourcing chemicals he could potentially use to poison Mr O'Hara. Following his arrest police recovered thallium, arsenic, mercury, sulfuric acid and the precursors to the deadly toxin ricin from this Ingelby Barwick home.

Kwan made a letter falsely purporting to be from the local NHS. It offered Mr O'Hara the chance for a free health check, which would take place in his and Ms Leung's Newcastle home. Kwan signed the letter in the name of Raj Patel, community nurse.

The appointment was fixed for the morning of 22nd January 2024. In the early hours Kwan had driven up from Teesside on false number plates and booked into a Newcastle Premier Inn under an assumed identity. He had also gone to the trouble of texting Mr O'Hara a fake NHS appointment reminder message.

On the morning in question Kwan disguised himself with make up, a false moustache and beard, glasses, face covering and beany hat. He wore surgical gloves and carried a bag full of props, including a false patient questionnaire, false NHS identity badge in the name of Raj Patel and various medical accessories. He took the ten minute walk to St Thomas Street.

Mr O'Hara answered the door and let the disguised GP in. Kwan, Mr O'Hara and Ms Leung were not on good terms and only saw each other infrequently. That, coupled with Kwan's disguise and meticulous planning, meant Mr O'Hara was completely taken in by his deceit.

Kwan and Mr O'Hara sat downstairs in the living room, with Ms Leung busy upstairs doing something else. For almost an hour Kwan, under the guise of nurse Raj Patel, discussed Mr O'Hara's health, completed the fake questionnaire and performed a series of examinations.

Kwan then told Mr O'Hara he was due a covid booster injection. Mr O'Hara was a bit suspicious as he had not long had a booster, but Kwan managed to persuade him to roll up his sleeve and receive another dose.

Of course it wasn't a covid booster at all. Kwan had actually stuck Mr O'Hara with a syringe containing the pesticide methyl iodide. Having done the deed, Kwan made his excuses to hurriedly leave Mr O'Hara and Ms Leung's home. As he was doing so Ms Leung, his mother, came down the stairs and passed him in the hallway. She commented that he was a similar height to her son, but thought nothing more about it.

Kwan made good his escape through the streets of Newcastle. Only a few minutes later Mr O'Hara, who was now suffering extreme pain in his arm, tried to call Kwan back, but he had already disappeared from sight.

A few days later Mr O'Hara went to the Royal Victoria Infirmary's Accident and Emergency Department to receive treatment for his arm, which was still very painful. He told hospital staff the story and they confirmed that they had never heard of the team nurse Raj Patel claimed to be from.

The toxin administered to Mr O'Hara was never clinically identified, but Kwan has subsequently claimed it was methyl iodide - a poison which is very hard to detect and treat. Mr O'Hara was left with a flesh-eating condition, which caused extensive tissue damage in his arm.

The pieces of the jigsaw now falling into place, Mr O'Hara and Ms Leung contacted the police to report their suspicions.

The police searched Kwan's home and found the chemicals previously mentioned, along with an assortment of documentation relating to murder, the synthesis of toxins and terrorism. They also recovered the SIM card he had used to text the appointment reminder to Mr O'Hara, as well as copies of the fake NHS letters and ID badge.

This is quite some story. A Hollywood blockbuster in the making.

Trial judge, Mrs Justice Lambert, has adjourned sentencing until Thursday, 17th October 2024.

Looking at the relevant sentencing guideline, I would suggest that the judge would consider this an offence of higher culpability and category 1 harm. That gives a sentence starting point of 30 years' custody.

Undoubtedly Kwan is a man of previous good character. However, that is more than offset by the glaring breach of trust and murderous perversion of his medical skills.

Update (6/11/24): Kwan has now been sentenced.

Offences Against the Person

Cases of assault appear frequently before the court.

In today's article, I give a brief summary of the four most common types of assault. Starting in order of increasing severity, these are:

• Common assault or assault by beating;
• Assault occasioning actual bodily harm;
• Malicious wounding or grievous bodily harm;
• Wounding or grievous bodily harm with intent.

I shall address each of these offences in turn, but before I do it might be worth reminding readers of my previous comments in relation to charge deflation. For reasons that aren't always apparent, the Crown often applies a lesser charge to an assault than the evidence suggests is justified.

Common assault or assault by beating:

These are offences under section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, which have a maximum sentence of 26 weeks' custody and/or an unlimited fine.

There are two different modes of assault here: common assault, which is sometimes referred to as technical or simple assault; and assault by beating, which is often referred to as battery.

Common assault is the immediate apprehension of unlawful physical force - e.g. the fear a person might have that they are imminently to experience unlawful physical force. They must apprehend immediate unlawful force, so an equivocal threat like "if you don't do X, I'll do Y" doesn't normally cut the mustard. It may, of course, constitute a different offence.

Assault by beating is the unlawful application of physical force - e.g. the actual physical contact between the offender and the victim. This can either be direct, as with a punch landing, or indirect, as with a stone being thrown and hitting someone. The victim does not need to suffer injury, but if they do it is of a very minor, temporary nature - reddening of the skin, a small bruise or scratch.

In terms of mens rea, these offences require the offender to act intentionally or recklessly.

Quite often common assault and assault by beating come hand in hand, but not always. If a victim was pushed suddenly and unexpectedly from behind they may not have apprehended the immediate use of unlawful physical force, in which case the offender would only be guilty of assault by beating.

The consent of the victim is always a defence against charges of common assault or assault by beating.

Assault occasioning actual bodily harm:

This is an offence under section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, which has a maximum sentence of 26 weeks' custody and/or an unlimited fine on summary conviction; 5 years' custody on conviction on indictment.

Unlike assault by beating it has an actus reus of causing actual bodily harm - e.g. physical or mental harm to the victim that is more than trifling and transient.

In terms of mens rea, assault occasioning actual bodily harm requires the offender to act intentionally or recklessly as to common assault or assault by beating.

The offender does not need to intend or foresee that any actual bodily harm might occur.

The consent of the victim is only a defence in certain limited circumstances.

Malicious wounding or grievous bodily harm:

These are offences under section 20 of the Offences Against the Person, which have a maximum sentence of 26 weeks' custody on summary conviction; 5 years' custody on conviction on indictment.

There are two different possible modes of assault here: wounding and grievous bodily harm.

In physiological terms wounding involves an injury that breaks the continuity of the skin to a depth below the epidermis. In practical terms that means you see blood. Wounding does not encompass internal bleeding or extensive bruising, which may fall within the scope of grievous bodily harm instead.

Grievous bodily harm means really serious harm. Unfortunately the definition hasn't been nailed down any more firmly than that, so in cases of doubt it is for the jury to decide. Grievous bodily harm need not be permanent, but it is certainly debilitating.

In terms of mens rea, malicious wounding or grievous bodily harm requires the offender to act intentionally or recklessly as to assault occasioning actual bodily harm.

This means that the offender must intend to cause actual bodily harm, or foresee it as a possible outcome of their assault.

The consent of the victim is only a defence in certain limited circumstances.

Wounding or grievous bodily harm with intent:

These are offences under section 18 of the Offences Against the Person, which have a maximum sentence of life imprisonment on conviction on indictment.

Again there are two different possible modes of assault: wounding and grievous bodily harm.

These have the same meaning as described in the previous section.

In terms of mens rea, wounding or grievous bodily harm with intent requires the specific intent of the offender to achieve either of those outcomes.

To complicate matters further, there is an alternative version of these offences that can be perpetrated against a person who is in the process of lawfully apprehending or detaining someone else.

In that situation, in terms of mens rea the offender must intend to resist or prevent the lawful apprehension AND intend or be reckless as to causing actual bodily harm to the person who is lawfully apprehending or detaining.

The consent of the victim is only a defence in certain limited circumstances.

Summary:

As there is a bit of overlap between these different assault offences, I have summarised the key ideas in the following table.

Cheshire Man Jailed for Dazzling Police Helicopter with Laser Beam

A Cheshire man has been jailed for dazzling the pilot of a police helicopter with a laser beam.

David Warren, 41, of Eagle Mount, Latchford, admitted an offence of shining a laser beam at a moving vehicle when he appeared at Warrington Magistrates' Court on Thursday, 30th September 2024.

It is an offence under section 1 of the Laser Misuse (Vehicles) Act 2018 for any person to:

• shine or direct a laser beam towards any vehicle which is moving or ready to move, and;
• the laser beam dazzles or distracts, or is likely to dazzle or distract, a person with control of the vehicle.

The offence is triable either way and has a maximum sentence of 26 weeks' custody and/or an unlimited fine on summary conviction; 5 years' custody and/or an unlimited fine on conviction on indictment.

In the early hours on Tuesday, 27th August 2024 an NPAS helicopter was tasked to assist with searching for a missing man in the Latchford area.

A green laser beam was shone at the helicopter from the upstairs window of a property. Officers were directed to the property in question, where they found Warren.

Warren refused to open the door, so officers forced entry. Upon searching the property they recovered a green laser pointer from an upstairs bedroom.

In interview Warren admitted the offence, telling officers that he had been using the laser to point out the helicopter whilst filming it on his mobile phone.

Warren was subject to a suspended sentence order, having been convicted of threatening a person with a weapon just a week prior to the laser incident. He was handed a 23-week suspended sentence in relation to that offence.

In relation to the laser incident, Magistrates were of the view that the offence was so serious that only a custodial sentence was appropriate.

Warren was sentenced to 12 weeks' custody for the laser offence. The court also activated his 23 week suspended sentence in full, meaning an overall sentence of 35 weeks' custody.

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

Magistrates also ordered the deprivation of his laser pointer.

Sergeant Michael Hayes of Cheshire Constabulary said: "While the person the police helicopter was searching for during this incident was ultimately located, shining the laser beam it its direction was incredibly dangerous, and could have seriously hindered their efforts to locate someone in need of help.

"The sentence handed to Warren should serve as a reminder of how serious this offence is considered.

"I hope it also reminds people of the risks associated with lasers, which some people may think of as a harmless device. This is far from the case and can have very serious consequences."

Four Pint Drink Driver Puzzled by High Alcohol Reading

A four pint drink driver was puzzled by the high alcohol reading when he provided an evidential specimen of breath.

Adrian Clarke, 59, of Bridge Road, Coalville, Leicestershire, admitted an offence of driving whilst over the prescribed limit when he appeared at Leicester Magistrates' Court on Monday, 30th September 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 Clarke's Vauxhall van shunted into the back of a Mercedes car on Mantle Lane, Coalville, shortly after midnight on Wednesday, 11th September 2024.

The globe-trotting 59-year-old, who caused significant damage to the Mercedes, was driving the short distance home, having just downed four pints at his local pub.

Having failed a roadside breath test, Clarke was arrested on suspicion of driving whilst over the prescribed limit for alcohol.

This was confirmed at the police station, where he provided an evidential specimen containing 105 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath - exactly three times the prescribed limit of 35 microgrammes.

Magistrates heard that Clarke had a previous historic conviction for drink driving, which would have no bearing on the outcome the case.

Addressing the court without a flicker of irony, Rashpal Singh, mitigating, said: "At first he was a bit puzzled as to why he had such a high reading as he had been to the pub and had four pints."

Mr Singh continued: "He had recently returned from Thailand where he had been drinking excessively. He has put it down to a combination of going on holiday and then what he would describe as social drinking."

Having considered the circumstances and relevant sentencing guideline, Magistrates were of the view that Clarke's offence was serious enough to merit a community order.

He was made subject to a 12-month community order, with the requirement that he completes 100 hours' unpaid work.

He was also ordered to pay £114 statutory surcharge and £85 towards prosecution costs.

In terms of ancillary orders, Clarke was disqualified from driving for a period of 26 months.

I'm not sure about you, but if I'd downed four pints at the local boozer the last thing I would be doing is driving home - particularly when it's only a 10 minute walk away.

If I'd downed four pints I'd also not be quibbling about the fact that I might be three-times the prescribed limit!

Bad Luck: County Durham Motorist Jailed for Driving Straight After Ban

A County Durham motorist drove straight home from court having just been disqualified for drink driving.

Steven Luck, 39, of Middlehope Way, Darlington, admitted driving whilst disqualified when he appeared in custody at Newton Aycliffe Magistrates' Court on Wednesday, 2nd October 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.

It was Luck's second visit to court this week, having been handed a 28-month disqualification at Peterlee Magistrates' Court the previous day.

Luck decided to chance his by driving straight home from the Peterlee court house, which is located next door to the local police station.

Special Constable Howells responded to reports that the dopey driver was taking the 30 mile journey back to Darlington.

Speaking to Luck, SC Howells asked: "Are you aware you've just been to court?"

Luck replied: "Yeah, yeah, yeah."

SC Howells added: "And you've just been disqualified?"

Luck replied: "Yeah, yeah - but I didn't know it starts straight away. Does it?"

I'm calling "bull" on that statement, because it is always made quite clear that a disqualification takes immediate effect.

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

He was sentenced to 8 weeks' custody and his disqualification was increased to 40 months.

New Poultry Registration Requirements

On 1st October 2024 new legislation came into force requiring poultry keepers with any number of birds to register with the Animal and Plant Health Agency (APHA).

Under previous rules, registration was only required for a person keeping 50 or more birds.

I fall into the new registration category, albeit in a very small-scale, hobbyist kind of way. I have a few chickens, which lay me a few eggs every now and then (when they feel like it).

They are kept in a secure run at the top of the garden, which is totally contained and separate from the external world. That being the case, they do not interact with any of the local wild bird population.

I've had them for years and they've never been a bother to anyone, so one might question the right of the state, particularly when my birds are isolated from the wider world, to interfere in this most therapeutic and enjoyable of pastimes.

I have to admit that as a hobbyist I rarely keep up to date with the latest poultry keeping news. For that reason it took me by surprise when someone mentioned the new rules just yesterday. Sure enough, it was true - poultry keepers with any number of birds are now required to register the fact with APHA.

I hope the authorities are feeling benevolent, because technically I have fallen foul (fowl?) of the rules by registering a couple of days later.

The legislation in question is regulation 7 of the Avian Influenza (Preventative Measures)(England) Regulations 2006, as amended by order 4 of the Exotic Diseases (Amendment)(England) Order 2024.

Under regulation 7 a person who keeps poultry needs to notify the Secretary of State in writing of:

• the address of the premises at which the poultry is kept;
• the name and address of the poultry keeper;
• if different, the name and address of the person who owns the premises at which the poultry are kept;
• the species of poultry kept at the premises;
• the number of poultry of each species kept at the premises;
• the purpose or purposes for which each species of poultry is kept at the premises.

The poultry keeper needs to notify APHA of any changes to their circumstances within 30 days; and, if no such notification has been made, confirm their registration details every 12 months.

There are additional requirements for keepers of 50 or more birds.

Contravention of this regulation is an offence under section 73 of the Animal Health Act 1981, which has a maximum penalty on summary conviction of 26 weeks' custody and/or an unlimited fine.

APHA is currently inundated with poultry keepers trying to register, so much so that their online system has been overwhelmed.

They are still accepting registration by email, but say that processing could take weeks.

That being the case I'm hoping they won't notice my tardiness!