Utterly Barbaric: Kent Savages Battered Sheep then Detonated Body

Two despicable Kent men battered a sheep to death before blowing its lifeless body to pieces with explosives.

Leighton Ashby, 22, of Beckett Road, Ashford, and Oakley Hollands, 20, of Mussenden Lane, Horton Kirby, admitted causing unnecessary suffering to a protected animal when they appeared at Brighton Magistrates' Court on Friday, 10th October 2025.

Causing unnecessary suffering to a protected animal is an offence under section 4 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006. The maximum sentence is 5 years' custody and/or an unlimited fine on conviction on indictment; 12 months' custody and/or an unlimited fine on summary conviction.

District Judge Amanda Kelly, presiding, heard that the pair drove to a field near Ditchling Beacon, East Sussex, on Saturday, 2nd November 2024.

They took two friends along on the pretence of going to see a dead badger, but things took a more sininster turn when Ashby and Hollands gave chase to a sheep.

Having tackled the helpless creature to the ground they "violently assaulted" it with a barrage of kicks and punches.

Their final act of depravity, at least on this occasion, was to use fireworks to detonate its lifeless body, although it is not clear if the sheep was already dead by that stage.

The incident was recorded on Hollands' mobile phone, which also contained "souvenir" videos of animals he had previously brutalised. The pair could be heard laughing in footage of the sickening 30 minute attack.

The two friends, who had no involvement in the attack, were left horrified by events.

Addressing the pair, DJ Kelly said: "It's hard to comprehend how you can inflict such brutal cruelty.

"It was sadistic and utterly barbaric."

Given the horrendous nature of the pair's actions, DJ Kelly was of the view that the court's sentencing powers were insufficient.

Ashby and Hollands were granted unconditional bail until they are sentenced at Lewes Crown Court on Monday, 10th November 2025.

With any luck, they have a very uncomfortable month until then.

First Time Alcohol Abstinence and Monitoring Requirement

Whenever the court imposes a community order it has available a range of requirements that can be attached to that order.

One or more requirements must be attached to a community order. The same requirements are available for attachment to a suspended sentence order, but this is at the discretion of the court - the theory being that a suspended sentence order, which is akin to the Sword of Damocles hovering over the head of the offender, is quite a significant sentence in its own right.

In 2021 the alcohol abstinence and monitoring requirement (AAMR) was added to the list available to the court. Until last week I had never been part of a Bench that had imposed this requirement, which should only be used in very specific circumstances. The court can impose an AAMR for up to 120 days. AAMR is a punitive measure, which effectively deprives the (adult) offender of the right to drink alcohol.

Whilst subject to AAMR the offender wears an electronic tag, which monitors the level of alcohol in their body. If the tag detects excess alcohol in their body, that is reported back to the monitoring company and may lead to breach proceedings.

Breach of a community order is a serious matter. The most egregious breaches - those where the offender makes very little or no effort to comply - can result in them being sentenced to a term of custody. That is the case even when the original offence, for which the order was imposed, did not merit custody in its own right.

The court generally seeks to avoid setting an offender up for failure, so AAMR is not appropriate for any individual with alcohol dependency or prone to binge drinking. In order to be successful AAMR requires a bit of commitment and willpower on the part of the offender.

The order made last week included a 90 day AAMR for an offender who had a record of committing criminal damage whilst drunk. They weren't heavily convicted, but their offences were linked by a common thread of excess alcohol leading to poor behaviour. All being well, the bus shelters of the neighbourhood should be out of harms way for at least the next three months.

Publicans Handed £20k in Fines Over Unauthorised Erection

A West Cumbrian couple have been fined a total of £20k after failing to comply with planning regulations at their grade-II listed pub.

George and Andrea Kemp, proprietors of the Lifeboat Inn, Maryport, were convicted of failing to comply with an enforcement notice when they appeared at West Cumbria Magistrates' Court on Friday, 26th September 2025.

This is an offence under section 179(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. It has a maximum sentence of a fine at level 5 (unlimited).

Magistrates heard that the couple erected a canopy outside the pub during the covid-19 pandemic. As the business is located within a conservation area they should have sought permission from Cumberland Council, but failed to do so.

The Lifeboat has great reviews on Tripadvisor, many of which cite its traditional decor and quality homecooked food.

Landlord Mr Kemp told the council that the enforcement notice had been incorrectly delivered to the wrong address, but Royal Mail records contradicted that claim.

There followed a significant period of dialogue between the parties. Having failed to reach a consensus, the council finally decided to prosecute the couple in June 2023.

George and Andrea Kemp were each fined £10,000 and ordered to pay £2,000 surcharge and £1,384.72 in prosecution costs.

Speaking after the convictions, a Cumberland Council spokesman said: "This has been a long standing issue which has only resulted in prosecution after repeated attempts to resolve the issue were not taken up by the owner of the property.

"The former planning authority and the current planning authority made several attempts to ensure the building was compliant with listed building regulations. These have been ignored.

"Notices were issued correctly and there was repeated attempts to offer advice on how to resolve the issue.

"We are pleased with the outcome of the court case."

Legal Advisor Brain Drain: An Update on Pupillage with HMCTS

A few months you might remember that I wrote about the current Legal Advisor "brain drain" within HMCTS.

As things currently stand some of our brightest, most talented new Legal Advisors are having to leave the service in search of pupillage opportunities elsewhere. With ongoing retention issues these are the very people the service should be nurturing and helping to develop their careers.

I am pleased to say that HMCTS seems to be taking this matter on board.

Speaking in a recent article on Magistrates' Matters, HMCTS Director of Operations, Daniel Flury, said: "An application has been submitted to the Bar Standards Board to enable HMCTS to offer pupillages.

"Pupillage is final step before becoming a fully qualified barrister. We already support Trainee Legal Advisors to achieve their solicitor's qualification, but we would like to extend our professional qualification offer further.

"The offer is complex and requires detailed and ongoing engagement with the Bar Standards Board and the judiciary. I look forward to being able to give a further update in due course."

Mr Flury also confirmed that HMCTS will be launching a new national recruitment campaign for legal operations roles in October 2025.