Mike Amesbury: Assault MP Has Sentence Suspended on Appeal

The 10-week prison sentence of Mike Amesbury MP has been suspended on appeal.

The appeal of the 55-year-old MP for Runcorn and Helsby was heard at Chester Crown Court on Thursday, 27th February 2025. HHJ Steven Everett, the Honorary Recorder of Chester, presided over the appeal. 

Amesbury was handed the 10-week sentence for his unprovoked assault of constituent Paul Fellows. It would be fair to say that the immediate custodial sentence took a lot of commentators, including myself, by total surprise. It is very unusual for a person to receive an immediate custodial sentence for a first offence of assault by beating (section 39 assault).

HHJ Everett, who was sitting with two Justices, was clearly very unimpressed with Amesbury's conduct on the night of the offence and during the immediate aftermath.

The Judge began by pondering why Amesbury had been charged with assault by beating when a charge of affray might have been more appropriate.

Summarising the assault, HHJ Everett said: "This was on the face of it an assault by a man, in a public place, following up the initial punch, which was a pretty robust punch, with a whole series of other punches, on a man who is effectively defenceless on the ground.

"You lost your temper in a huge way, you took it out on him by punching him and then following him and repeating to punch him on the floor."

The Judge also noted that Amesbury, who he described as having "anger management issues", had "told the police a pack of lies" after the event, when he claimed to have felt threatened by Mr Fellows.

Endorsing the length of DJ Ikram's original sentence, HHJ Everett went on to consider if the custodial term should instead be suspended. Considering the MP's remorse and prospect of rehabilitation, the balance was tipped in that direction.

Amesbury's immediate 10-week sentence was suspended for a period of 2 years. He will be released from HMP Altcourse later today.

The requirements of the suspended sentence are that he undertakes 200 hours' unpaid work and up to 20 days' rehabilitation activity. He will also be subject to 12 month alcohol monitoring requirement and need to attend an anger management course.

Under current legislation - the Recall of MPs Act 2015 - an MP faces a recall petition, and therefore the prospect of losing their seat, if they receive a custodial sentence. This applies to both immediate and suspended sentences.

Amesbury will now face such a petition and in all likelihood will lose his seat.

As the Prime Minister recently said: "Law makers cannot be law breakers".

Oxfordshire School Business Manager Defrauded School

An Oxfordshire school business manager defrauded her employers by writing cheques to herself and forging the signatures.

Melissa Murphy, 31, of Waverley Avenue, Kidlington, admitted two offences of fraud by abuse of position and one of theft by employee when she appeared at Oxford Magistrates' Court on Tuesday, 25th February 2025.

Fraud by abuse of position is an offence under section 4 of the Fraud Act 2006. It has a maximum sentence of 12 months' custody and/or an unlimited fine on summary conviction; 10 years' custody and/or an unlimited fine on conviction on indictment.

Magistrates heard that Murphy was working at Bladon Church of England Primary School, Woodstock, when the offences took place between 1st January 2023 and 12th June 2024.

In addition to the dodgy cheques, there is mention that Murphy carried out bank transfers between the school account and her own.

The theft offence has a value of £999.98, but there is no mention of the value of the fraud offences.

Given that matters have been sent to the Crown Court for sentencing, I would suggest that there is significant information about the fraud offences that has gone unreported.

If it was just a case of the £999.98 then that could have been comfortably sentenced at the Magistrates' Court.

Murphy was granted unconditional bail until her sentencing hearing at Oxford Crown Court on Monday, 14th April 2025.

Update (25/4/25): Murphy has now been sentenced to 16 months' in custody suspended for 18 months, with the requirement that she undertakes 80 hours' unpaid work. As suspected, the sums involved seem greater than the £999.98 mentioned, with the headteacher of Bladon Primary School, Vickie Cook, saying that the total amount was £26,000.

Flabbergasted: Mike Amesbury MP Jailed for Unprovoked Assault of Constituent

I am absolutely flabbergasted at the sentence imposed on Mike Amesbury MP.

In case you missed it, the soon-to-be-former MP for Runcorn and Helsby has just been jailed for 10 weeks for an unprovoked assault on constituent Paul Fellows.

It wasn't a very nice assault - Amesbury and Fellows were discussing the closure of a bridge in the town of Frodsham. The MP, who was well oiled at the time, clearly didn't like the line of conversation, telling Mr Fellows it was "nothing to do with me".

Mr Fellows was stood with his hands in his pockets at the time. As he looked away, Amesbury aimed a punch to his head. A dazed Mr Fellows was knocked to the ground and Amesbury continued raining punches down at his head.

CCTV footage of the incident shows a completely unprovoked assault on Mr Fellows. The matter is further compounded by the fact that Labour-man Amesbury tried to slime his way out of trouble, by saying that he "felt threatened" by Mr Fellows at the time. Total cobblers, of course.

There were lots of aggravating factors to this offence - Amesbury was drunk, the assault was totally unprovoked, it happened in the dead of night and with several onlookers.

Even so, it is unusual that DJ Tan Ikram has decided to impose an immediate 10 week custodial sentence.

Amesbury is a man of previous good character. He has undoubtedly done valuable work for his constituents and community. Despite initially trying to weasel his way out of it, the mood music would now suggest that he is genuinely remorseful for his actions.

In his sentencing remarks, DJ Ikram has given a good indication of his logic. He has said that he wants the sentence to have deterrent value and that he views Amesbury's offence as being a breach of his position of responsibility.

Turning to the relevant sentencing guideline, DJ Ikran views the offence of one of higher culpability, presumably due to Amesbury's persistence (e.g. repeated blows) and Mr Fellows' vulnerability (e.g. on the ground, not fighting back).

In terms of harm, DJ Ikram considers that Mr Fellows has suffered a medium level of harm.

Referring to the guideline, that combination of culpability and harm gives a starting point of a medium level community order, with a range between a low level community order and 16 weeks' custody.

DJ Ikram has then factored in the aggravating and mitigating circumstances and concluded that they push the sentence towards the top of the range. Giving credit for Amesbury's early guilty plea, he has arrived at the final sentence of 10 weeks'.

Even now, just because a sentence of 10 weeks' is on the cards, the court can consider whether a lesser sentence - e.g. a very intensive community order - might be more appropriate. The court should also consider whether or not the custodial term can be suspended.

Generally speaking, there are three circumstances where it might be appropriate to suspend the custodial term:

• Realistic prospect of rehabilitation;
• Strong personal mitigation;
• Immediate custody will result in significant harmful impact on others.

In Amesbury's case, I would certainly have expected there to be a realistic prospect of rehabilitation.

Only then, having totally ruled out the prospect of an alternative to custody or a suspended custodial term, should the court be imposing an immediate custodial sentence.

For a one-off, first time offence like this, immediate custody is very unusual.

DJ Ikram has made another interesting comment when sentencing, saying that the guidelines "were not a strait jacket" - in other words, he is not slavishly in obeyance of them.

The decision to jail Amesbury has certainly put a cat among the pigeons, with neither the disgraced MP or his solicitor, Richard Derby, quite believing such an outcome. Amesbury didn't even have his overnight bag with him.

Mr Derby has indicated that Amesbury intends to appeal the sentence, which he has to do within 21 days. Once the appeal application is received a hearing will be listed at the Crown Court, but that might take another week or so. More about appeal hearings in my earlier article.

DJ Ikram refused to grant Amesbury bail pending the appeal, so the 55-year-old MP is currently on the bus destined for HMP Altcourse. His next few days in custody will undoubtedly be a very humbling experience.

One other thing that we learnt at today's sentencing hearing: Amesbury has no intention of resigning from his £7,500 a month role as an MP. He's clearly going to get as much as he can from the system before he is ejected from it.

Update (27/2/25): Amesbury has now appealed his sentence.

Mike Amesbury MP Jailed for Thumping Constituent

Mike Amesbury MP has been jailed for thumping a constituent during an early morning disagreement about a local bridge.

Amesbury, 55, of College Drive, Frodsham, Cheshire, admitted an offence of assault by beating when he appeared at Chester Magistrates' Court on Thursday, 16th January 2025.

He was sentenced by DJ Tan Ikram, the Deputy Senior District Judge, at the same court on Monday, 24th February 2025.

Assault by beating, an offence contrary to section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, has a maximum sentence of 26 weeks' custody on summary conviction. You can read more about this offence in my earlier article.

Amesbury assaulted constituent Paul Fellows during the early hours of Saturday, 26th October 2024. Mr Fellows approached the MP on Frodsham High Street to discuss the closure of the Sutton Weaver swing bridge. Amesbury clearly wasn't very conversational, deciding instead to punch Mr Fellows several times around his head. The punching continued even though Mr Fellows was knocked down on the ground.

To make matters worse the 55-year-old politician gave some cock and bull story to the newspapers about "feeling threatened" by Mr Fellows.

Footage quickly emerged confirming that Amesbury was the aggressor. The video showed the MP landing the first blow on a very confused Mr Fellows, who was stood passively with his hands in his pockets and head turned away. By all accounts it was a totally unprovoked assault, despite Amesbury's initial pretence to the contrary.

Prosecutor Alison Storey recounted the facts of the case for the benefit of the mass of journalists sitting at the rear of the courtroom.

Getting to the nub of the matter, she said: "It is clear there was no aggression from Mr Fellows. He was alone. He didn't retaliate, even after he was punched to the floor."

Ms Storey also noted that Amesbury had been drinking, which was a statutory aggravating factor.

Richard Derby, mitigating, began by gushing about his client: "I've never represented a person of such exemplary character as I have today, who has provided so much of his life to public service and the service of others."

Turning the incident, he added: "There was something said, clearly by Mr Fellows, that rightly or wrongly Mr Amesbury was concerned by."

Mr Derby added that his client, who has no previous convictions, deeply regrets his actions on that morning. He said Amesbury's behaviour was totally out of character.

DJ Ikram noted that the offence was one of higher culpability and had a starting point of 16 weeks' custody.

Hearing that, an alarmed Mr Derby sprang back to his feet: "There is a real, real fear that if you take that starting point, the ramifications are not just for Mr Amesbury but also for his six members of staff."

The solicitor noted that the MP will now face a Parliamentary investigation into his conduct, so the sentence imposed by the court was only the beginning of repercussions for him.

"The sentences he is carrying emotionally and professionally are lengthy and will stay with him forever," Mr Derby concluded.

Addressing Amesbury, DJ Ikram said: "You were out drunk in the early hours, the attack was unprovoked, being in drink was no excuse and as an MP you can reasonably expect robust challenge from constituents. You continued the attack while the victim was on the ground, this incident may not have come to an end if bystanders didn't intervene."

Amesbury was sentenced to 10 weeks' custody.

He was also ordered to pay £200 in compensation, £154 surcharge and £85 towards prosecution costs.

Amesbury's position as an MP is now utterly untenable. If he had an ounce of decency then he would immediately resign his Parliamentary seat. However, on a monthly salary of £7,500 and as many silly expenses as you can shake a stick at, he might be inclined to ride the gravy train for as long as he can.

Update (27/2/25): Amesbury has now appealed his sentence.

Cheshire Drug Dealer Spat in Prison Officer's Face

A Cheshire drug dealer spat in the face of a prison officer who was returning him to his cell.

Conor Bassnet, 30, of London Road, Sandbach, admitted assaulting an emergency worker when he appeared at Leicester Magistrates' Court on Wednesday, 19th February 2025.

The offence took place when Bassnet was a prisoner at HMP Stocken, having been sentenced to five-and-a-half years for possession of heroin with intent to supply.

Tracy Lovejoy, prosecuting, outlined the facts: "On September 3, 2024, at HMP Stocken, the defendant was given a direct order to return to his cell but he refused to."

As the officer approached Bassnet said: "Touch me and I'll start swinging."

Other officers came to assist with Bassnet's forced removal to his cell. Once back at the cell, the officers released their grip on Bassnet's arms.

Ms Lovejoy continued: "As they released him, he turned around and spat into the face of the victim, hitting him just above his left eye and above his mouth."

In a victim personal statement, the officer said: "I find being spat at utterly disgusting. I'd rather be punched.

"I worry about being infected with a virus."

Berinda Chawla, mitigating, told the court that his client had been undergoing treatment for psychosis and was feeling "sad, alone and anxious."

Mr Chawla said that Bassnet, who had been "law-abiding since leaving prison", had been placed in solitary confinement as a result of the assault. Given his punishment by the prison authorities, Mr Chawla asked the Bench to deal with the matter by way of a standalone compensation order.

The court heard that Bassnet had been working as a chef since his release from custody in October 2024.

Magistrates were of the opinion that the offence was serious enough to merit a community order.

Presiding Justice, Jonathan Price JP, said: "It's a really unpleasant offence.

"There's an awful lot of aggravating factors, not least of all that it was in a prison. You're just this side of going back to custody."

Bassnet was handed an 12-month community order with the requirement that he completes 160 hours' unpaid work.

He was also ordered to pay £100 compensation, £114 surcharge and £85 towards prosecution costs.

Norfolk Soft Toy Thief Sentenced

A Norfolk woman stole dozens of soft toys from garden centres around the county.

Ruby Smith, 35, of Victoria Hill, Eye, admitted seven offences of shop theft at an earlier hearing.

She was sentenced at Norwich Magistrates' Court on Monday, 17th February 2025.

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

Magistrates heard that the thefts occurred between July and September 2024, with Smith stealing from three different Norfolk garden centres. She was accompanied by her young children on each occasion.

Smith, who has previous convictions for theft, first targeted the Bressingham Garden Centre, near Diss. She stole £1,600 of toys on 20th July, returning twice over the next fortnight to steal further toys valued at £1,679 and £512.

On 6th August Smith stole £194 worth of toys from the Wroxham Barns gift shop, at Hoveton. She returned on 31st August to steal a further £136 worth of toys.

Smith then hit Thetford Garden Centre, taking an unknown number of toys on 9th September and £58 worth on 23rd September.

CCTV footage of the thefts showed Smith concealing the expensive Jellycat branded toys in her bag, clothing or child's pram. She then left the premises without making any attempt at payment. They toys have a retail value of between £20 and £50 each.

Acting on intelligence received, police executed a search warrant at Smith's home address on 14th November 2024. During the search they recovered around 40 Jellycat toys, which had a total value of around £3,000.

Magistrates were of the view that Smith's offences, when considered in the round, were so serious that only a custodial sentence was appropriate. However, they have elected to suspend the custodial term, no doubt to the benefit of her children.

Smith was sentenced to 26 weeks' custody suspended for 24 months, with the requirement that she undertakes 40 days of accredited programme work and up to 7 days rehabilitation activity.

She was ordered to pay £1,400 in compensation and £154 surcharge.

Pembrokeshire Man Used Jet Ski Dangerously

A Pembrokeshire man has admitted using his jet ski dangerously in the Port of Milford Haven.

James Watts, 33, of Cambrian Road, Neyland, admitted three offences contrary to the Milford Haven Harbour byelaws when he appeared at Haverfordwest Magistrates' Court on Thursday, 6th February 2025.

The offences in question were:

• Manoeuvring a vessel in such a manner as would cause damage, danger or inconvenience to other users;
• Engaging or taking part in jet skiing without the permission of the Harbourmaster;
• Doing an act injuriously affecting the safety of navigation within the Haven.

The maximum sentence for each offence is a fine at level 3 (£1,000).

Magistrates heard that the offences took place on Sunday, 21st July 2024, when Watts was using a jet ski at excessive speed in a no wake zone; failed to stop when required to do so; and provided false details when he did eventually stop.

Watts was fined £600 and ordered to pay £2,000 towards prosecution costs and £240 surcharge.

Milford Haven is the largest and busiest port in Wales, so there are strict rules in force for any vessels operating there.

"Manipulative" Merseyside Barrister Refused Breath Test

A "manipulative" barrister refused to provide the police with a specimen of breath when she was stopped on suspicion of drink driving.

Rachael Tansey, 44, of Formby, Merseyside, denied two offences of failing to provide a specimen for analysis, but was convicted following a recent trial at Sefton Magistrates' Court.

It is an offence under section 7(6) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 for a person, without reasonable excuse, to fail provide a specimen for analysis when required to do so. The maximum sentence on summary conviction is a fine at level 4 and/or 3 months' custody.

Tansey's defence was on the basis that recent cosmetic lip surgery was a reasonable excuse for failing to provide a specimen of breath; a phobia of needles was a reasonable excuse for failing to provide a specimen of blood. For reasons which will become apparent, the court rejected both of these defences.

Elizabeth Brown, prosecuting, told the court that an off-duty police officer alerted colleagues to Tansey's standard of driving during the early hours of Saturday, 20th April 2023.

In particular, the officer's attention had been drawn to the unusually slow speed and "weaving around" of Tansey's silver Range Rover, which was travelling on the A565 Formby bypass.

Uniformed officers attended Tansey's home address a short time later and asked her to undergo a roadside breath test, which she refused.

According to Ms Brown, Tansey "failed to give a sample of breath despite being given multiple opportunities to do so."

PC Thomas Moore, giving evidence, told the court that the silver Range Rover smelt of alcohol.

He said: "(Tansey) said that she would be unable to provide a roadside breath test because she had cosmetic surgery on her lips the day before.

"She was putting her lips around the tube and forming a seal at one point to provide a partial sample but could not complete and provide a full sample.

"She was very arrogant to be honest."

Tansey was arrested and taken to the police station, where she was asked to provide an evidential specimen of breath. She again failed to do so, citing the recent surgery on her lips.

The officers noted that she had her lips partially around the tube and told her "you are not even trying."

Tansey replied: "I am doing my very best. It is like asking someone to jump up after a tummy tuck. I cannot do it."

Unable to obtain a specimen of breath, the officers then requested Tansey to provide a specimen of blood.

She replied: "Good luck trying to get blood from me. Let's roll the dice. I will not consent to blood."

CCTV footage showed that at no time did Tansey mention a phobia of needles.

Tansey was then charged with both offences.

Giving evidence in her own defence, Tansey denied that she had been drinking. She said she had just completed an 18-hour shift at work and had accidentally dropped a chicken wrap in the foot well of the car. She also said that she had been using mouthwash at the time.

She maintained that the surgery on her lips meant she had been unable to blow into the machine; a phobia of needles, which was not diagnosed, had prevented her from giving a specimen of blood.

District Judge James Hatton, unsurprisingly, found Tansey's evidence very unsatisfactory.

He said: "From the moment that you got out of the car you attempted to manipulate this situation.

"You have tried to delay and delay and delay the officers. You tell the officers that you had nothing to drink. Clearly you had at least something to drink.

"I find it extremely unlikely indeed that you would be eating a chicken wrap, chewing gum and swilling the mouthwash and spitting it into a cup while driving along the Formby bypass.

The judge concluded: "I reject your account in its entirety as there is no support for it. You are a witness who lacks any kind of credibility whatsoever.''

The is an absolutely damning summary by DJ Hatton, who clearly does not believe a word Tansey has said. That is not a good position for a barrister to be in.

Tansey was granted unconditional bail until her sentencing at Liverpool Magistrates' Court on Tuesday, 4th March 2025.

North Wales Police Refused to Return Burglary Victim's Phone, Due to Burglar's GDPR Rights

North Wales Police refused to return a burglary victim's phone, due to the burglar's GDPR rights.

Daniel Reid, 33, of Bodfor Street, Rhyl, was sentenced for three offences of burglary when he appeared at Caernarfon Crown Court on Wednesday, 5th February 2025.

HHJ Nicola Jones, sentencing, was a bit surprised to learn that one of the victims, Melvyn Mainwaring, had needed to buy a new phone because his Samsung A14, despite being recovered from Reid, was still being held by the police.

The court heard that Reid targeted Mr Mainwaring's Abergele home on 18th May 2024. Early that morning the occupier awoke to find belongings out of place and his phone, bank cards and bus pass missing.

Two days later the police arrested Reid on unrelated matters. Mr Mainwaring's phone was found in his possession. It was clear that Reid had used the phone as his own since the time of the burglary.

Mr Mainwaring, in a victim personal statement, told that court that the theft of his phone, which contained a number of irreplaceable photographs, had been "a massive inconvenience."

To add insult to injury Mr Mainwaring was still having to pay the £18 a month contract for use of the device, which was still tucked away in a police property bag.

HHJ Jones asked if the police had been reluctant to return Mr Mainwaring's phone due to GDPR. The prosecutor, Tom McLoughlin, replied: "I do not know. It would not surprise me."

HHJ Jones doubled-down, saying: "It's ridiculous it will not be (returned). It just seems nonsensical. I do direct that North Wales Police return that telephone to Mr Mainwaring."

The judge also noted that Reid had not been bothered about the victim's GDPR rights when he stole the device.

Reid was sentenced to a total 3 years and 5 months for the three burglaries and failing to surrender.

Update (8/2/25): In response to a deluge of negative commentary, North Wales Police has issued a statement clarifying the situation.

Kent Woman Develops Unhealthy "Obsession" with Gynaecologist

A Kent woman developed an unhealthy obsession with her gynaecologist.

Lisa Beevers, 58, of Sholden, near Deal, previously admitted an offence of stalking involving serious alarm or distress.

She appeared for sentencing at Margate Magistrates' Court on Thursday, 30th January 2025.

Stalking involving serious alarm or distress is an offence under section 4A of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. It has a maximum sentence of 12 months' custody and/or an unlimited fine on summary conviction; 10 years' custody and/or an unlimited fine on conviction on indictment.

Magistrates heard that Beevers had been a patient of her consultant gynaecologist, Dr Martin Farrugia, for the last nine years.

Her unhealthy interest in the medic started when she underwent treatment at the Spencer Private Hospital, Margate in November 2023.

She returned to the hospital a few days later and demanded to see the doctor, who wasn't there at the time.

Neil Sweeney, prosecuting, said that the 58-year-old left a card with the message: "Thank you so much for taking care of me." She signed off with a kiss, love heart and the words: "If you are a free man, text me".

Over the following weeks she sent a letter to Dr Farrugia's work place, in which she expressed her love and vowed to "get him". She also returned to the hospital bearing expensive gifts and a further love letter, which she followed up with a phone call to ensure they had been delivered to the doctor.

By January 2024 the police had been alerted to Beevers' activities and warned her against further contact.

However, by the start of February 2024 she had resumed her unwanted advances, visiting the hospital with further gifts and letters for Dr Farrugia. She also assumed a false identity on the telephone to Dr Farrugia's secretary, who she managed to dupe into disclosing the doctor's mobile telephone number.

Beevers then sent a string of disturbing text and voice messages, which left Dr Farrugia concerned about the safety of his family.

In June 2024 he moved to work at a different hospital, but Beevers still managed to track him down and continued with her unwanted advances.

She was finally arrested a few days later. When charged with stalking she replied: "I have been a very silly woman."

Dr Farrugia, in a victim personal statement, said: "It has worried me to the extent I have had nightmares about this... at this point, I'm considering changing my working pattern.

"I'm also worried about the impact this will have on my partner, who is aware of the situation, and my children."

Ian Bond, mitigating, told the court that his client was of previous good character.

She had been experiencing personal problems, which she discussed with Dr Farrugia during consultations. This had led to him becoming "a confidant rather than just a professional advisor."

Mr Bond added: "She became obsessed by Dr Farrugia and sought him out but she was in a state of mental distress at the time."

Having heard the circumstances Magistrates were of the view that the court's sentencing powers were insufficient given the magnitude of the offence.

Beevers was granted conditional bail until her next hearing at Canterbury Crown Court, which should be around Thursday, 27th February 2025.

In the meantime she is banned from contacting Dr Farrugia other than to attend a legitimate medical appointment.