Norfolk Motorcyclist Gave Police Cock and Bull Story

A Norfolk motorcyclist gave police a cock and bull story when he was pulled over for having an obscured number plate.

Reece Grint, 23, formerly of Ormesby Saint Margaret, Great Yarmouth, but now living in Newcastle-upon-Tyne, appeared at Norwich Magistrates' Court on Tuesday, 24th December 2024.

He admitted offences of obstructing a police constable, possession of cannabis, driving a motor vehicle otherwise than in accordance with a licence, driving without third party insurance and driving a vehicle with an obscured registration mark.

Magistrates heard that officers spotted Grint zipping along on his KTM 125 motorcycle on the A11 on Wednesday, 17th July 2024. The officers followed the motorcycle, which had an obscured number plate, until it pulled in at Wymondham railway station.

Qamar Iqbal, prosecuting, told the court that Grint provided false details to the officers, who clearly had a distinct lack of curiosity about his real identity, before he wandered off to board a train.

Such was his hurry to catch the train that the 23-year-old left behind his bag, which was found to contain 11 grams of cannabis.

Grint later contacted the police to ask for his bag back. He was invited in for a chat about its contents.

Alison Armstrong, mitigating, told the court that her client had been in a hurry to catch the train because he was heading for a job interview in Newcastle-upon-Tyne.

After confirming that he was not under arrest, Grint went to board the train and mistakenly left his bag behind.

Ms Armstrong told the court that her client had previously been disqualified and had reapplied for a provisional licence. He was not sure if he was able to ride in the meantime, but apparently decided he was going to anyway.

Having considered the totality of offences Magistrates decided to fine Grint £673.

He was also ordered to pay £269 surcharge and £85 towards prosecution costs.

Grint's licence was endorsed with 6 penalty points.

This case just goes to show that it is often the little things that lead police to detect more serious offences.

I mean I doubt the officers on the day realised they were pursuing a criminal mastermind.

Magistrates' Blog Top 10 for 2024

Greetings pop pickers!

I hope you've all had an enjoyable Christmas and wish you all the very best for the New Year.

To mark the end of the year I thought I'd give a quick chart run down of the top ten Magistrates' Blog articles for 2024 based on page views.

Some of these are timeless classics, but there are also a few new entries in this year's top ten.

#10 - Jailed: South Wales Dine and Dashers Ann and Bernard McDonagh Sentenced

• Coming in at number 10 it's those freeloading rogues Ann and Bernard McDonagh, who were jailed for a campaign of thievery and dine-and-dashery in South Wales. Ann McDonagh was jailed for 12 months; Bernard for 8 months.

#9 - "I'm a Child, I'm a Child" Squeals Baby-Faced Darlington Yob Who Bricked Police

• At number 9 we have 18-year-old Cole Stewart, who decided it would be a good laugh to pelt police with bricks during a night of violent disorder in Darlington. Seizing their opportunity, officers rushed Stewart who was "giving it the big I am" in front of onlookers. His tune quickly changed, and bowels quickly loosened, once he was swiftly tackled to the ground. Stewart was sentenced to 18 months'.

#8 - Tommy Robinson Cleared of Failing to Comply with Police Dispersal Direction

• At number 8 we have political activist Stephen Yaxley Lennon, otherwise known as Tommy Robinson. I'll not repeat the mistake I made in my earlier article of calling him a far-right activist - darn, too late. Robinson was up for failing to comply with a section 35 direction. He was cleared at trial when it emerged that the direction in question was materially defective.

#7 - Watching Social Media Audits: Like Being Swallowed by a Quagmire of Ignorance

• At number 7 I comment on the recent boom in the craze of social media auditing. It's a bit like lighthouse bagging, but for morons.

#6 - Magistrate Interview Process

• Coming in at number 6, one of the timeless classics I mentioned earlier. If you're interested in applying to become a Magistrate, then this article guides you through the interview process.

#5 - Oxfordshire YouTuber Convicted of Filming in Magistrates' Court

• At number 5 we have YouTube sensation "Auditing Britain", who was convicted of filming at Wellingborough Justice Centre, having spent half an hour arguing with staff about his (non-existent) right to do so.

#4 - Cambridgeshire Man Convicted of Sending Labour Deputy Leader Threatening Email

• Storming up the chart to number 4 is a man who sent threatening messages to Angela Rayner MP. This article might have benefited from Ms Rayner's recent elevation to the role of Deputy Prime Minister.

#3 - Reform UK Poised to Launch Private Prosecution of Manchester Airport Brothers

• Another new entry, at number 3 is commentary on Reform UK's bid to bring a private prosecution against brothers accused of brawling with police at Manchester Airport.

#2 - Attention-Seeking Starlet Victoria Thomas Bowen Sentenced for Milkshaking Nigel Farage

• Screeching into second spot is news about the sentencing of the woman who threw a milkshake at Nigel Farage MP as he was pounding the campaign trail.

#1 - Man Prosecuted Over "No Shit" Comment

• This year's number one, another timeless classic, is the embarrassing tale of the Derbyshire man prosecuted for saying "no shit" to a delicate police officer.

"Truth Seeker" Who Exposed Walter Mitty Police Chief Accused of Stalking Walter Mitty Police Chief

A Northamptonshire man who exposed a Walter Mitty police chief is currently remanded in custody having been accused of stalking the aforementioned Walter Mitty police chief.

I think I better stop writing now, because I'm sure mere mention of the words "Walter" and "Mitty" in the same sentence has already flagged up on Northamptonshire Police's radar.

Only joking.

You might remember that former Chief Constable Nick Adderley was dismissed for gross misconduct, having fabricated a past military service that stretched not only credulity, but also time and space.

You can read all about Adderley's misdemeanors in my earlier article.

It all came unstuck for the wannabe First Sea Lord when he was caught posing on camera wearing various medals and military accouterments to which he had no entitlement - specifically a South Atlantic Medal, awarded to veterans of the Falklands War, and a Royal Navy junior officer's peaked cap, worn by officers below the rank of Commander.

Simon Tilley, 44, of Branksome Avenue, Kingsthorpe Hollow, appeared in custody before Northampton Magistrates' Court on Monday, 24th December 2024.

Tilley is accused of the aggravated (section 4A) stalking of Adderley and two other senior police officers, who came to prominence during his investigation into Adderley's conduct. He is also accused of three offences of perverting the course of justice.

Given the serious nature of the allegations, Tilley did not enter a plea. He has been remanded in custody until his next appearance at Northampton Crown Court on Tuesday, 11th February 2025 - although I would fully expect him to be granted bail before then.

Obviously I am somewhat limited in what I can say about the allegations against Tilley. What I can say is that over the last year or so his journalistic endeavours have attracted negative attention (and damage limitation) from Northamptonshire Police.

It will be very interesting to see how this story develops.

Government Reiterates Plan to Outlaw Trail Hunting

The Government has reiterated its intention to ban trail hunting.

I appreciate this is a very contentious issue, so I am going to write this piece entirely on the basis of the legislation as it currently stands.

It is now twenty years since the enactment of the Hunting Act 2004, which prohibits the hunting of wild mammals with dogs unless that hunting is exempt. The "unless that hunting is exempt" caveat covers a multitude of sins and it would be entirely accurate to say that even with the best will in the world, exempt hunting - e.g. using dogs to flush wild mammals from cover with the intention of shooting them - can rapidly and unintentionally evolve into unlawful activity.

I have previously discussed the 2004 Act in some detail. Quoting from my earlier article: "The legislation, as currently formulated, is difficult to enforce as there are a myriad of perfectly valid and plausible defences. If the Government wishes to retain the Act and have it applied in the spirit as originally intended, it might be an appropriate time to take another look at the wording.

"The court, remember, can only apply the legislation that is in force. Personal feelings and emotions should not feature."

As a result of the poorly drafted legislation prosecutions under the 2004 Act are actually very rare. In the year ending 30th June 2023 there were 46 prosecutions, of which only 14 resulted in a conviction. I have never been involved in such a prosecution.

Hunts have changed their practices in an effort to remain within the law. One way of achieving this is to lay an artificial scent trail, which the hounds can pursue as an alternative to a fox. This is known as trail hunting. The trail is laid by a person (the trail layer) walking (or riding) the intended route of the hunt, dragging a scented rag along the ground as they go.

No offence is committed if the hounds take after a fox that coincidentally strays onto the trail, as long as the hunters are unaware that the fox is being chased or, if they are aware, make efforts to call the hounds off.

There is suggestion that some Hunts use trail hunting as a front for illegal hunting. In 2020 Mark Hankinson, then director of governing body the Masters of Fox Hounds Association (MFHA), was recorded apparently giving advice to members about the deployment of such a "smokescreen".

Speaking on a Zoom webinar, Hankinson said: "We need to have clear, visible, plausible trail laying being done throughout the day.

"It's a lot easier to create a smokescreen if you've got more than one trail layer operating, and that is what it's all about, trying to portray to the people watching that you're going about your legitimate business." 

He added: "Trail hunting needs to be highly visible, it needs to be credible and those involved need to be robust when questioned."

Hankinson was convicted of intentionally encouraging or assisting in the commission of an offence under the 2004 Act. However, he was cleared following an appeal at Southwark Crown Court, with the court accepting that the offending comments had actually been advice about what to do if lawful trail hunting was disrupted by saboteurs.

Despite Hankinson's conviction being set aside, the Government seems in little doubt about there being a more sinister side to trail hunting.

Earlier this week a DEFRA spokesman told the PA news agency: "We are committed to a ban on trail hunting, which is being exploited as a smokescreen to cruelly kill foxes and hares."

If we accept trail hunting at face value then we have a load of country folk, riding horses and quad bikes, exercising hounds and getting all excited about chasing a smelly rag across the fields.

They are using their horses, their quad bikes, their hounds, their smelly rag and their land in order to achieve this. If that is all they are doing, then they are doing so perfectly legally.

Is it right for the Government to take that away from them? Is it right for the Government to say "well actually you can't ride your horses and quad bikes over your fields, whilst exercising your hounds and chasing after a smelly rag"?

Powys Man Convicted of Being Drunk in Charge of a Bicycle

A Powys man has been convicted of being drunk in charge of a bicycle after he rode the aforementioned bicycle into the side of a 4x4 vehicle.

Adrian Lloyd, 61, of Penybryn, Crossgates, admitted the offence when he appeared at Llandrindod Wells Magistrates' Court on Tuesday, 17th December 2024.

Given the (apparent) wording of the charge, it would appear that CPS lawyers have dusted off the statute books to bring this prosecution under section 12 of the Licensing Act 1872. The maximum sentence on summary conviction is a fine at level 1 (£200) or up to one month in custody.

Magistrates heard that Lloyd was riding a Raleigh electrical assisted pedal cycle at the time of the offence. That being the case the choice of charge - which by definition requires a defendant who is not riding - seems a bit unusual, but I'm sure there must be some logic behind it - I mean it's not as if the CPS would ever lay the incorrect charge (wink, wink). Even if it did, it's not as if the court would not realise (nudge, nudge).

Shane Maddocks, prosecuting, said: "The defendant was seen by an officer cycling on the A483 along Tremont Road.

"The officer noticed he was riding on the wrong side of the road, there was a 4x4 vehicle on the road.

"As he approached a roundabout, the officer had seen the defendant getting up off the floor and pushing his bike; it seems he had collided with the 4x4.

"A roadside breath test was positive. There was damage to the vehicle, approximately £500, with scratches caused to the 4x4."

Owain Jones, mitigating, said: "He remembers the incident; he fell, he was drunk at the time and he's sorry for it.

"I've had fun researching old law which states that the punishment for this offence should be 10 shillings.

"It's an old law but I think it has been revised."

Despite the severity of his offence, Magistrates decided to spare Lloyd custody on this occasion.

He was fined £40 and ordered to pay £200 compensation, £16 surcharge and £85 towards prosecution costs.

Leaving the courtroom, the defendant cheerily told the Magistrates: "Have a lovely Christmas and god bless you."

Kent Boxer Victim to Bail Blunder

A Kent boxer wrongly spent a night in the cells after being arrested for breaching bail conditions that had been varied.

Sam Whittle, 23, of Canterbury, is currently on bail awaiting trial in relation to an alleged drug offence. He was initially granted bail with the requirement that he was subject to an electronically monitored curfew between the hours of 7 pm and 7 am.

Whittle made an application to Folkestone Magistrates' Court to have his conditions varied, on the basis that the curfew made it difficult for him to attend boxing training sessions. The court duly obliged, varying his curfew so that it applied between the hours of 8 pm and 8 am.

Making an application to the court was absolutely the right thing to do. The court is generally quite amenable to making minor variations when there is a good reason to do so. 

Unfortunately the court's decision was not conveyed to either the police or Electronic Monitoring Services - the Ministry of Justice contractors responsible for the administration of the electronic monitoring system.

On Friday, 29th November 2024, by which time the new curfew hours were in operation, Whittle was incorrectly recorded as being in breach when he returned home between 7 pm and 8 pm.

He was arrested and spent a night in the cells before appearing at Margate Magistrates' Court on Wednesday, 4th December 2024.

Whittle actually admitted breaching his conditions, only to be told that he hadn't and it had been an administrative error.

Addressing Whittle, the Presiding Justice said: "We will make sure these hours are changed to 8 pm to 8 am but the other bail conditions still remain."

Whittle was released on the same bail conditions until his next hearing at Canterbury Crown Court on Monday, 6th January 2025.

Something similar has happened in one of my courts. A defendant was presented before the Saturday court, having been arrested for breaching his bail conditions. I forget the exact details, but it was a technical breach and nothing malicious. The Bench agreed to vary his conditions slightly to avoid recurrence.

Word of that decision never made it to the police, which resulted in the defendant being arrested in exactly the same circumstances the following day. He was presented again before the court on the Monday morning, by which time the prosecutor had realised the mistake.

We made sure he was at the front of the queue and brought straight to the courtroom, where I explained that there had been an oversight and he should never have been arrested in the first place. I offered the court's apologies, before sending him on his way on the same bail conditions.

North Tyneside Woman Blew Almost Five Times Drink Drive Limit

A North Tyneside woman faces the real prospect of a custodial sentence after being caught driving when almost five times the legal limit.

Susan Young, 52, of Rae Avenue, Wallsend, who appeared at South East Northumberland Magistrates' Court on Wednesday, 18th December 2024, admitted driving a motor vehicle when the amount of alcohol in her breath exceeded the prescribed limit.

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

Magistrates' heard that Young had attended the Northumbria Specialist Emergency Care Hospital, Cramlington, on the morning of Friday, 1st November 2024.

Holly Clegg, prosecuting, said: "The staff were concerned that the defendant had driven her vehicle after consuming alcohol.

"Officers attended the hospital and found the defendant sitting in her car. She said she had drank a bottle of wine. They conducted a roadside breath test, which she failed."

CCTV footage showed Young's car arriving at the hospital's car park a short time earlier.

Having failed the preliminary test she was arrested and conveyed to the police station, where she provided an evidential specimen of breath containing 165 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath - almost five times the prescribed limit of 35 microgrammes.

That is without doubt one of the highest readings I have ever heard of. Such a high reading is nearly always indicative of a defendant with alcohol misuse issues.

Stewart Hay, mitigating, told Magistrates that Young had attended hospital after suffering a mishap when walking her dog earlier that morning.

He said that she had been drinking heavily the previous night and wrongly thought she was fit to drive.

Mr Hay added: "She realises she has a drink problem and has linked up with Northumbria Recovery Partnership to deal with the problem."

Magistrates ordered the completion of a pre-sentence report, indicating that all sentencing options were on the table.

They granted Young unconditional bail until her sentencing hearing at the same court on Wednesday, 8th January 2025.

Given the offence attracts an obligatory driving disqualification, Young was handed an immediate interim disqualification.

Ipswich Man Admits Sharing Vile Video of Dead Motorcyclist

An Ipswich man uploaded vile video footage of the body of a dead motorcyclist in the immediate aftermath of a road traffic collision.

Arturas Motuzis, 38, of Chilton Court, Belstead Avenue, Ipswich, admitted an offence under section 127(1) of the Communications Act 2003 when he appeared at Suffolk Magistrates' Court on Thursday, 19th December 2024.

Motuzis was also admitted using a handheld mobile phone whilst driving.

It is an offence under section 127(1) of the 2003 Act for a person to send, by means of a public electronic communications network, a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character. The maximum sentence, on summary conviction, is 26 weeks' custody and/or an unlimited fine.

Magistrates heard that the collision occurred on the A14 at Sproughton, Ipswich, on the early evening of Tuesday, 4th June 2024.

Motuzis, who was driving home from work, passed on the opposite carriageway. As he did he used his mobile phone to record footage of the scene, including the body of motorcyclist Kevin Doherty.

The footage was later uploaded to a Facebook traffic information group, which resulted in numerous requests for it to be removed. The police were also informed about the graphic nature of the video.

The following day Motuzis was identified and arrested. In interview he made full admissions and said he was remorseful for his actions.

Addressing the defendant, the Presiding Justice said: "We have just heard of the vile actions you took on 4th June. This is one of the most distasteful things we have heard for many years in this court."

Motuzis was fined a total of £900.

He was also ordered to pay £360 surcharge and £85 towards prosecution costs.

His licence was endorsed with 6 penalty points.

Cheshire Village Rocked by Conifer Scandal

The tranquility of a tiny Cheshire village has been shattered by a row over conifer hedging.

Thomas Jones thought he was doing the village a service by cutting back the unkempt hedgerow that had been left to grow uncontrollably. However, his neighbour, who owned the hedge, decided to repay his act of benevolence by reporting his actions to the police.

Jones, 46, of Station Road, Lea by Backford, Chester, begrudgingly admitted an offence of criminal damage when he appeared recently at Chester Magistrates' Court.

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

Prosecutor Valeriya Tonkinson told the court that the owner of the hedge had returned home on Thursday, 10th October 2024, to find Jones and his partner cutting back the offending piece of hedgerow.

When the owner challenged Jones, she was told that she never cut the hedge and "people need to get past".

The court heard that the owner of the hedge shortly intends to sell her property.

Jones attended court with the intention of denying the offence, on the basis that his actions had been "in the public interest". However, after a quick chat with the duty solicitor, he reluctantly accepted that he had been in the wrong.

Stevie Bate, mitigating, said: "He incorrectly thought he was doing the public a favour in cutting back the trees as they were on a bend and were hard for people to get past.

"But he does accept that he was not in the right to cut the trees down and was legally wrong."

Ms Bate added that the farm labourer had refused to accept a police caution, which is why the matter had ended up in court.

Jane Davies, Presiding Justice, told Jones: "There is a process and you didn't follow it, which you now know."

Jones was handed a 6-month conditional discharge.

He was also ordered to pay £100 in compensation, £85 towards prosecution costs and £26 surcharge.

So what would have been the correct procedure?

Well, had the hedge been encroaching into Jones' property he would have been absolutely in his rights to trim it back to the boundary. In those circumstances the cuttings would still belong to the owner of the hedge, so they should be offered back to them before any attempts at disposal.

As it goes, the hedge was encroaching onto the public highway adjacent to the owner's property. In those circumstances the correct approach would have been to report that matter to the local authority. The local authority has various statutory powers, including those under section 154(1) of the Highways Act 1980, to require the owner to undertake remedial work.

And what do I think of this particular case?

Well, I'm sure it was very important to the owner of the hedge. Even if it was a completely unnecessary waste of everyone else's time.

Attention-Seeking Starlet Victoria Thomas Bowen Sentenced for Milkshaking Nigel Farage

Attention-seeking starlet Victoria Thomas Bowen has been sentenced for milkshaking Nigel Farage during a campaign walkabout.

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.

She was sentenced by the same court on Monday, 16th December 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. 

Criminal damage is an offence under section 1(1) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971. Criminal damage below £5,000 is a summary offence, with a maximum sentence of 3 months' custody and/or a fine at level 4.

The 25-year-old OnlyFans model slung a milkshake at Mr Farage, the recently elected Reform UK MP for Clacton, as he left the town's 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.

When questioned by police the immature influencer said she "did not regret" her actions, which were because she "disagrees with [Mr Farage's] political views".

District Judge Tan Ikram, at the first hearing, said: "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 sentenced to 13 weeks' custody suspended for 12 months, with the requirement that she completes up to 15 days' rehabilitation activity and 120 hours' unpaid work.

She was also ordered to pay £167.50 in compensation (£150 to Mr Farage and £17.50 in dry cleaning), £154 surcharge and £450 towards prosecution costs.

Speaking on social media platform X, Mr Farage said: "We now live in a country where you can assault a Member of Parliament and not go to prison.

"The latest example of two-tier justice."

It is not the first time Mr Farage has been milkshaked on the campaign trail. A similar incident happened in May 2019, when the then Brexit Party leader was campaigning in Newcastle a few days before the European Parliament elections.

Local man Paul Crowther saw Mr Farage walking beside the city's Grey's Monument and took the opportunity to douse him with milkshake. Crowther was later handed a 12-month community order with 150 hours' unpaid work requirement.

In June 2024 Derbyshire man Joshua Grealley threw objects at Mr Farage when he was campaigning in Barnsley. The 28-year-old, who had no previous convictions, was handed a 6-week suspended sentence with 120 hours' unpaid work requirement.

High Court Bans Identification of Sara Sharif Family Court Judges

The High Court has banned the identification of the Family Court judges who oversaw proceedings in relation to murdered 10-year-old Sara Sharif.

Urfan Sharif, 43, and Beinash Batool, 30, were convicted of Sara's murder following a nine-week trial at the Old Bailey. The pair are due to be sentenced on Tuesday, 17th December 2024.

Sara's killing is too upsetting to write about in detail. Even more upsetting is the fact that the authorities had concerns about the parental suitability of Urfan Sharif.

Last week Mr Justice Williams made an order preventing the naming of the Family Court judges, and others, involved in the decision to grant custody of the children to Urfan Sharif.

The order prohibits publication of "the name of any third parties referred to in the historic proceedings for the avoidance of doubt including social worker, guardian other named professionals and experts instructed in the proceedings and any judge who heard the historic proceedings".

Such an order is highly unusual.

There is a strong chance the professionals working closely with the Sharif family will face an uncomfortable degree of scrutiny and attract a lot of criticism.

In some cases that might, arguably, be scrutiny and criticism well beyond their pay scale, particularly when those in higher office were aware of the risks posed by Urfan Sharif.

However, if you're a member of the judiciary then criticism comes with the territory - you accept that everyone has an opinion and quite often it will contradict your own.

A fundamental aspect of the principle of open justice is that the public has a right to know which judges preside over which cases.

Even in the Magistrates' Court if a journalist or member of the public asks for the names of the Bench, they are entitled to receive that information.

The Guardian is going to appeal Williams J's decision.

Burglary

Burglary is an offence we don't see a lot of in the Magistrates' Court, but given the recent uplift of the court's sentencing powers it is something we will deal with a lot more in the future.

When I say we don't see a lot of it, that doesn't mean burglary is particularly uncommon - although readers can be reassured that it is certainly a lot less common than it was even a decade ago. It means that a significant proportion of burglary offences, domestic burglaries in particular, are sent straight to the Crown Court.

In today's article I shall describe the nuts and bolts of the offence of burglary. Legal readers aside, many people are of the opinion this means breaking into somewhere and stealing something. The true extent of burglary is actually far broader than that.

Legislation:

Burglary is an offence under either sections 9(1)(a) or 9(1)(b) of the Theft Act 1968.

The section 9(1)(a) offence, which is often referred to as burglary with intent, is as follows:

"A person is guilty of burglary if:

(a) he enters any building or part of a building as a trespasser and with intent to commit and such offences as is mentioned in subsection (2) below (namely theft or attempted theft of any item; attempted to inflict or inflicting grievous bodily harm)."

The section 9(1)(b) offence is as follows:

"A person is guilty of burglary if:

(b) having entered any building or part of a building as a trespasser he steals or attempts to steal anything in the building or that part of it or inflicts or attempts to inflict on any person therein any grievous bodily harm."

It therefore follows that a person can be guilty of burglary without the requirement that they break in and steal something. For example:

• They walk through the open door of a building with the intention of vandalising it (section 9(1)(a));
• Once inside a building they decide to give someone therein a good beating (section 9(1)(b)).

Actus reus and mens rea:

This is summarised in the table below.

Note that for the offence to be made out the relevant actus reus and mens rea need to coincide. For that reason it would be incorrect to charge a person with section 9(1)(a) burglary if they entered a building as a trespasser with innocent intent, but later decided to steal something.

Penalties:

In accordance with section 9(3) of the Act the maximum sentence for burglary is 14 years' custody in relation to a dwelling; 10 years' custody in relation to a non-dwelling.

The maximum sentence on summary conviction is 12 months' custody.

Entering:

In the early days of the Theft Act 1968 the initial train of thought was that the defendant had to make "effective" and "substantial" entry to a building, or part of a building, in order to commit burglary (R v Collins [1973] 1 QB 100). However, with the passage of time judges have considered quite a few variations on the theme.

In R v Brown [1985] Crim LR 320 the court upheld a defendant's conviction for burglary, when he failed in his argument that his entry to the building had not been substantial. In that case the defendant leant through an open shop window and swiped mechandise that was on display within reach.

In R v Ryan [1996] Crim LR 320 the defendant became stuck in the window as he was entering a building with the intention of stealing property. Given that only his head had made it through the window, his legs flailing frantically outside, he argued that his entry had not been effective. The court disagreed, persuaded by his clear intention to steal and active attempt to do so.

Those cases demonstrate that burglary can still be committed even if only a proportion of the defendant's body trespasses into the building or part building concerned.

Buildings and parts of buildings:

In order to be considered a building a structure has to have a degree of permanence - e.g. a house, factory, garage or shed.

Section 9(4) of the Act states that any reference to a dwelling shall be interpreted as to include inhabited vehicle and vessels, even if the person who inhabits them is not doing so at the relevant time - e.g. camper vans, house boats and similar.

A part of a building encompasses any room or part of a room where the defendant has no permission to be. This covers situations where the defendant might be in a building legitimately, but accesses a part they should not - e.g. a staff room, office, bedroom, store room etc.

Part of a building can also mean part of a room that they are excluded from - e.g. stepping over the rope barrier in a museum; going beyond a sign saying "no public access"; wandering around to the staff-only side of a shop counter (R v Walkington [1979] 1 WLR 1169).

As a trespasser:

I have previously covered trespass in some detail (Aggravated Trespass and Social Media Auditing), so I'll keep this section fairly brief.

A trespasser is a person who does not have permission, either express or implied, to be in a particular place at a particular time. This could be a person who has permission, but somehow exceeds it - e.g. they stay beyond the permitted time; or wander into an area they are told to keep out of.

There are two other situation, which are particularly relevant in the case of burglary.

The first is where a person fraudulently obtains permission to enter a building, in which case the law deems them a trespasser (R v Boyle [1954] 2 QB 292).

The second is where a person enters a building with the intention of doing something contrary to the general permission to enter, in which case the law deems them a trespasser - e.g. they enter a shop with the intention of stealing goods (R v Jones and Smith [1976] 1 WLR 672).

Shops regularly copper-bottom the matter of trespass by issuing banning orders to people they do not want in their premises.

In conclusion:

That's pretty much it for my whistle-stop tour of the offence of burglary.

The essential ingredient in every burglary is that the defendant, or at least part of their body, is present as a trespasser.

They might enter a building with the specific intention of committing an offence (section 9(1)(a)), or they might already be inside the building when they have the urge to do so (section 9(1)(b)).

As usual, I very much welcome feedback in the comments if you think I've missed or need to clarify anything.

Leveson to Lead Inquiry on Criminal Court Reform

Retired High Court Judge Sir Brian Leveson KC has been appointed by the Government to undertake a "once in a generation" review of the criminal court system in England and Wales.

Rumours about this first emerged about a month ago, with the suggestion that the review will consider the establishment of some sort of intermediate court with maximum sentencing powers of 2 years. The court would consist of a Crown Court Judge, be that a Circuit Judge or Recorder, sitting with two Justices of the Peace.

This is the same format as when the Crown Court hears appeals from the Magistrates' Court. It would work in very much the same manner, with the professionally-qualified judge advising on points of law and all three having an equal say on the findings of fact and decision making.

The reason such a court might be needed is that the current backlog of Crown Court trials stands at just over 73,000, with there being no obvious signs of abatement on the horizon. Assuming a trial lasts for one week (which it doesn't) and every Crown Court courtroom in England and Wales was used to handle trials (which it isn't), it would take more than three-and-a-half years to clear that number of cases.

Of course in reality it would take far longer than three-and-a-half years because new trials would still be listed and probably only half the available courtrooms are actually dealing with trials at any given time. It's a right pickle, make no mistake. The oft-used maxim of "justice delayed is justice denied" has never been more appropriate.

My personal view is that we should be squeezing as much as we can out of the current system, before radically overhauling the rights of people appearing before the court.

According to Daniel Cloake's very useful @Court_Stats X account, today there are only 415/516 Crown Court courtrooms being used. That is 101 extra courtrooms that could be used to deal with short trials, those expected to last less than a week, that could be presided over by Judges sitting in retirement or Recorders if necessary.

As things currently stand it is very unusual for the Crown Court to sit beyond 4 pm, whereas the Magistrates' Court often sits well beyond that. A lot of extra non-trial work could be achieved by sitting until 5 pm, which would also help free up capacity for trials.

Most Crown Court venues across the land have at least one or two courtrooms dedicated to appeals from the Magistrates' Court every week. Again, those could be freed up for trials very easily. Instead of the Magistrates going to the Crown Court, the Crown Court would go to the Magistrates.

Every Magistrates' Court within walking distance of its local Crown Court would play host to the appeal hearings. A Recorder or Judge sitting in retirement would turn up and deal with the appeals in a Magistrates' Court courtroom. A Court Associate would have the role of clerking. This would be ideal in places like Bristol, Preston, Manchester and Teesside where the Crown and Magistrates' Court buildings are only a stone's throw apart.

I'd also be looking very carefully at which either way offences are sent to the Crown Court for trial or sentencing. Shop theft, in particular, is a bit of a bugbear of mine. Shop theft is the bread and butter of the Magistrates' Court, with hundreds of cases listed on a daily basis. In theory low value (<£200) shop theft is a summary offence (s22A of the Magistrates' Court Act 1980), but an adult defendant can still indicate that they would like the matter dealt with by way of a Crown Court trial (try to get your head around that one).

You could have the preposterous situation where a defendant elects a Crown Court trial when they are accused of stealing a packet of chewing gum. In reality it tends not to be as ridiculous as that, but even so you could have a defendant accused of a £500 Tesco trolley dash electing a Crown Court trial. In my view, it would be better to amend the legislation so that any offence of shop theft below £1,000 was summary only full stop.

Anyway, that's enough of my thoughts on the matter. In summary - no new intermediate court until they have improved the efficiency and maxed out the capacity of what we already have.

McDonald's Helps to Apprehend Another Drink Driver

Fast food giant McDonald's has helped police apprehend another drink driver, albeit in a slightly indirect manner on this occasion.

Brian Okidi, 33, of Greenhithe Road, Aylestone, Leicester, was previously convicted of driving with excess alcohol, obstructing a police constable and driving without insurance.

He was sentenced at Leicester Magistrates' Court on Friday, 6th December 2024.

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

Magistrates heard that Okidi's black MG motor vehicle was brought to the attention of police on the morning of Monday, 22nd July.

A member of the public had reported that the car was obstructing a cycle lane and the driver, now identified as Okidi, was dozing behind the wheel.

Sukhy Basi, prosecuting, continued: "Officers approached and saw him asleep with a McDonald's breakfast half eaten and the engine still running. The officer had to knock heavily to rouse the defendant."

After giving a false name, Okidi stumbled as he exited the vehicle. Having cause to suspect he was under the influence, the officers required him to complete a road side breath test.

On failing the road side test, Okidi was arrested and taken to the police station. Whilst there he provided an evidential specimen containing 97 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath, the prescribed limit being 35 microgrammes.

Mr Basi said: "He (Okidi) said he had been drinking whiskey in town all night. When asked when he had stopped drinking he said, 'In all honesty, I don't know."

During interview the 33-year-old, who is no stranger to either the police or McDonald's, maintained the pretence that he was someone else. His true identity was later confirmed when he was fingerprinted.

Okidi has a previous convictions for drink driving, driving whilst disqualified and failing to stop at the scene of an accident, as well as for a string of non-motoring offences.

He had originally denied drink driving, saying that the MG had been parked up in the cycle lane all night. This was contradicted by CCTV footage, which showed him arriving in the car earlier in the morning. In any event, he failed to attend for trial and was convicted in his absence.

Roshni Modi, mitigating, said her client had given a false name because he had panicked. She said her client was a "hard working" man, who worked selling and washing cars - although perhaps not for much longer.

She added: "Although he's fit to do unpaid work he feels unpaid work would be setting him up to fail due to his employment."

That being the case Okidi, via the medium of Ms Modi, expressed his preference for a standalone suspended sentence order.

This clearly got the back up of the Magistrates, with the Presiding Justice, Gareth Roberts, telling Okidi: "It's not up to you to suggest the sentence we give you. We're not here to work at your convenience, do I make myself clear?"

Disregarding Okidi's request, Magistrates sentenced him to an 18-month community order with 300 hours' unpaid work - a fairly hefty order, so there may have been some merit in the suggestion he was being "set up to fail".

He was also ordered to pay £620 towards prosecution costs and £114 surcharge.

Okidi was disqualified from driving for a period of 4 years.

Addressing Okidi before he left the courtroom, Mr Roberts said: "If you drive now you will be sent to prison."

Anyone wondering about the title to this post: It's pretty well known in court and police circles that a large number of drink drivers are caught "with the munchies" when they attend McDonald's drive thrus. I think McDonald's must have a company policy of reporting any driver they suspect of being under the influence.

Ipswich Man Had Stash of Sickening Images

An Ipswich man was found with more than 400 sickening images depicting child abuse and bestiality.

Gary Cary, 30, of Rapier Street, Ipswich, appeared at the town's Magistrates' Court on Friday, 6th December 2024.

He admitted three offences of making indecent images of children; one offence of possession of a prohibited image of a child; and one offence of possession of extreme pornographic images.

Making an indecent image of a child is an offence under section 1 of the Protection of Children Act 1978. It is an either way offence with a maximum penalty of 10 years' custody on conviction on indictment, 12 months' custody and/or an unlimited fine on summary conviction.

However, it would appear that these images were "made" by virtue of being downloaded from the web, instead of produced "at source". That being the case the relevant sentencing guideline indicates the offence is to be considered as possession for the purposes of sentencing. That would give a starting point of 12 months' custody in the case of category A images, which is clearly aggravated by the number of images and additional offences.

Magistrates heard that Cary's collection contained 75 category A images; 85 category B images; and 133 category C images. He also downloaded 86 category A videos; 53 category B videos; and 30 category C videos.

Category A images involve penetrative sexual activity; category B images involve non-penetrative sexual activity; and category C images involve sexualised poses.

Some of the media downloaded by Cary featured children as young as 6 months' old.

Magistrates were of the view that their sentencing powers were insufficient to deal with Cary's crimes.

That being the case, he was granted conditional bail until his sentencing at Ipswich Crown Court on Friday, 3rd January 2025.

Bradford Man Jailed for Speeding Ticket Scam

A Bradford man has been jailed for orchestrating a speeding ticket scam.

Khuram Yaqoob, 35, of Westlands Drive, Bradford, admitted 25 offences of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. He was sentenced to 3 years and 4 months' custody at Bradford Crown Court on Tuesday, 3rd December 2024.

The court heard that police had cause to seize Yaqoob's phone in April 2019 in relation to other matters. On examining the device they discovered evidence of a so-called NIP farm.

The scam involved Yaqoob providing false names and addresses to drivers who received a notice of intended prosecution (NIP) in relation to speeding offences.

The false information, for which Yaqoob charged a fee, was then used in response to the notices, which meant the real drivers escaped prosecution.

Some paid up members to the scam were advised to nominate entirely innocent family members.

Fifteen other men were jailed earlier today for their participation in the scam:

• Qaiser Rehman, aged 31, of Woodside View, Bingley, sentenced to 14 months.
• Mohammed Macmour, aged 31, of Bentcliffe Drive, Leeds, sentenced to 12 months.
• Russell Bland, aged 46, of Waterwheel Rise, Huddersfield, sentenced to 11 months.
• Haroon Mushtaq, aged 28, of Woodland Crescent, Mixenden, sentenced to 10 months.
• Usman Suleman, aged 37, of Princeville Road, Bradford, sentenced to 10 months.
• Seth Mahmood, aged 26, of Alvanley Court, Bradford, sentenced to 10 months.
• Safyan Sarwar, aged 32, of Lindley Moor Road, Huddersfield, sentenced to 10 months.
• Ibrar Hussain, aged 28, of Bronshill Grove, Allerton, sentenced to 9 months.
• Waqas Hanif, aged 33, of Lilycroft Road, Bradford, sentenced to 9 months.
• Nosheen Ashraf, aged 31, of Rushton Road, Bradford, sentenced to 7 months.
• Mohammed Yunis, aged 28, of Chapel Lane, Allerton, sentenced to 7 months.
• Billy Thomas-Hopwood, aged 34, of Yewdall Way, Bradford, sentenced to 6 months.
• Idris Yousaf, aged 45, of Sycamore Avenue, Huddersfield, sentenced to 6 months.
• Shakeel Shazad, aged 32, of Church Street, Heckmondwike, sentenced to 6 months.
• Mohammed Bhatti, aged 26, of Grange Drive, Allerton, sentenced to 6 months.

Three others received suspended sentences:

• Shazad Ul Hamid, aged 46, of Emm Lane, Heaton, Bradford, sentenced to 8 months suspended for 2 years.
• Safina Iqbal, aged 34, of Scholes Street, Bankfoot, Bradford, sentenced to 6 months suspended for 2 years.
• Akib Mahmood, aged 30, of Wimborne Drive, Allerton, sentenced to 6 months suspended for 2 years.

Rachel Wainwright, of West Yorkshire Police's Prosecutions and Casualty Prevention Unit, said: "Yaqoob convinced his customers that they would be able to escape speeding offences by following his advice and sending him money.

"Instead, they have found themselves before the same court as him, where they have been dealt with for a serious offence.

"Speeding is a major factor in road traffic collisions in West Yorkshire, and it is only right that those who are caught speeding are dealt with in the proper way.

"Perverting the course of justice is a serious offence and I hope this outcome sends out a warning to anyone who thinks they can evade detection for offences committed on our roads."

This result should serve as a good reminder of the perils of trying to hoodwink the police or the court.

Further information about speeding offences in my earlier article.

Celebrity Thief Marco Pierre White Junior Spared Prison

Celebrity thief Marco Pierre White Junior has been spared prison, despite being branded a "professional criminal" by Magistrates.

White, 29, of Upper Church Road, Weston-super-Mare, Somerset was sentenced for two non-dwelling burglaries and a shop theft when he appeared at North Somerset Magistrates' Court on Monday, 29th November 2024.

Magistrates heard that the ex-reality TV star burgled the Behind Bars Body Piercing and Tattoo shop, just a stone's throw from his home address, on Thursday, 19th September 2024.

He stole electrical items and jewellery from the premises.

On Tuesday, 22nd October 2024 the recovering drug addict stole £149.20 worth of toys from Home Bargains on Winterstoke Road, Weston-super-Mare.

On Thursday, 24th October 2024, White burgled the Paw Paw Bubble Tea shop on Cheap Street, Weston-super-Mare, but left the premises empty-handed.

White has a litany of previous convictions, mainly for offences involving dishonesty and drugs.

Magistrates were of the opinion that his latest crime spree was so serious that only a custodial sentence was appropriate. However, presumably for reasons of drug rehabilitation, they have elected to suspend the custodial term.

White was sentenced to 30 weeks' custody suspended for 18 months, with a 9-month drug rehabilitation requirement.

He was also ordered to pay "a fine and costs" - whatever that means.

PC Joseph Reed of Avon and Somerset Police said: "Retail crime causes immense harm to our communities and we're committed to tackling these offences in all their forms.

"This defendant was spotted by a member of the public in the aftermath of the Weston-super-Mare burglary incident, which enabled officers to make a swift arrest. He's now been brought to justice for three offences within a short period of time."