A woman prosecuted for breaking lockdown rules told a court she had inadvertently attended an illegal gathering.
"It was not intentional...I didn't realise there would be others present".
She had popped round to deliver a birthday card, she said. No intention to attend an illegal gathering.
The woman apologised, and her guilty plea was taken into account at sentencing.
Some reasons for breaking the Covid rules are sad.
This Ilford man was threatened with a £10k fine - more than his annual wage - for an event marking a friend's death. It was cut to £1,200 at court.
Police focused on presence of a hog roast to say the gathering was pre-planned
A 66-year-old man from Brockley was accosted by police for meeting friends at his allotment to break up the loneliness.
He ended up with a £100 fine.
This man organised an online fundraiser to help pay his rent, as he struggled with mental health difficulties and economic woes in lockdown.
He protested that it hadn't been a 'party' but still ended up being prosecuted.
Police have swiftly rebuffed anyone who argues that they didn't know how many people were going to be at a gathering in advance.
Ignorance of the rules hasn't gone down too well either.
A landlord tried to blame government ministers over the scotch egg 'substantial meal' debacle, but eventually admitted he hadn't read the Covid legislation.
This man appears to have been struggling when he broke quarantine, and was prosecuted despite apparent efforts to stick to the principles of the isolation rules.
"I did it because I didn't want to be alone"
I threw a party "to celebrate the easing of lockdown restrictions"
Around 2,500 people have now been prosecuted for Covid offences in London, with many more still to come.
This man didn't care much for the rules, he was "saving lives on the dancefloor" and told police he would "sort this out in court".
When prosecuted, he didn't enter a plea and was convicted in his absence
And finally, a young man was prosecuted for throwing a drum&bass house party.
He insisted it was mistaken identity, and the case was dropped when he protested: "I really hate drum and bass".
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
When the Conservatives created the Single Justice Procedure in 2014/15, they said 'trust us', everything will be done fairly, you don't need open court hearings.
A 90-year-old housebound pensioner is convicted of not keeping up with his car insurance.
He doesn't have email, struggles to walk, can't write anymore & cares for a wife with dementia
In our flawed, secretive, fast-track justice system, this kind of prosecution keeps happening
Anyone prosecutor with a heart would read that letter & say perhaps a criminal case can be avoided.
But as we now know, prosecutors in the Single Justice Procedure usually don't read these letters. At all. On this point, the system is fundamentally broken standard.co.uk/news/uk/single…
The magistrate in this case opted to accept the guilty plea, impose a 3-month conditional discharge + £50 costs
The case could've been referred to an open court hearing when a DVLA rep would have been present.
Did the magistrate know the DVLA had likely never seen this letter?
You join me in a busy magistrates court, waiting for a Met Police officer to appear on rape charges.
Most people won't set foot in a courtroom like this. It's chaotic at times, the cases are varied, and justice is served.
Here's what I'm listening to:
First into the dock is a trainee chiropractor, 21, who pushed two police officers as they tried to arrest his brother.
Facing charges of assaulting emergency workers.
He pleads guilty, after his lawyer asked the CPS to deal with the incident out of court with a caution.
Defendant's lawyer says he was trying to stop Met Police officers busting into his home while his wife and mother were not "covered up", as they need to be according to their religion.
A woman, 78, hadn’t paid her car insurance.
She was prosecuted after not paying a DVLA fixed penalty notice.
£40 fine, £100 costs & a £16 victim surcharge. So far, not very interesting.
But look at the guilty plea & recoil in horror that any magistrate convicted her at all…
Her daughter wrote to the court.
Her mum has schizophrenia, dementia, & Alzheimer’s.
She broke her ankle in March, was taken to hospital, and is now in care.
She & her brother are dealing with her affairs: “Both at breaking point”, she said.
And the magistrate still convicted.
The question is, can that magistrate genuinely have looked at the guilty plea before convicting and issuing a fine?
This was in the Single Justice Procedure, so it was behind-closed-doors, cases dealt with at speed, and only one magistrate making the decisions.
Before magistrates grant powers allowing councils to send in bailiffs, should they scrutinise and actually look at the evidence?
Last week, I saw magistrates at a London court approve Council Tax liability orders for 2205 households in just 9 minutes and 40 seconds.
The fine reporting of @deankirby_ on the pre-payment meter scandal got me wondering about other court processes done on a batch basis, rather than individually.