A private hire driver tried to escape a driving ban by getting a friend to take his penalty points for speeding. But the boss of his firm reported the incident and the pair were found out. According to the Daily Post, private hire driver Craig Stuart Jones and his accomplice Paul Nathan Jones have been found guilty of conspiracy to per- vert the course of justice after a trial. They recently appeared at Caernarfon Crown Court to be jailed for five months and three months respectively. The Judge told the men: “This offence undermines the very foundation of the justice system in England and Wales. “The offence is so serious only an

immediate custo- dial sentence is appropriate.” Prosecutor Nich- olas Williams told the court Craig Jones was caught speeding on the

A55 by a speed camera in January 2018. He was caught again by the same camera the following day. As Jones already had points on his licence he knew he would be disquali- fied from driving if caught due to the totting up of his points. So he asked his friend Paul Jones to take the points for one of the speed-

ing offences. Craig Jones, 36, duly returned a form to say he drove on January 23 that year and that Paul Jones drove the car on January 24 that year. Paul Jones, 28, filled in a form to say he had driven the car on January 24. The prosecutor said both were sent on speed awareness courses and nei- ther got penalty points. But the court heard that about a year later Craig Jones’ former employer went to the police and an investigation began. The prosecutor said: “The two defendants conspired together to pervert the course of justice by lying about who had been driving.”


A 67-year-old PHV driver was jailed for two years and given a six-year driving ban after admitting offences that caused the death of Wendy Short and seriously injured her friend. According to The Lincolnite, Ian Pen- man, of Nettleham, was the driver of a PHV involved in a crash between a lorry and a Seat on the A46 in July 2019. Wendy Short, 79, died at the scene and her friend and neighbour, Josephine Houghton, 71 was taken to hospital in Nottingham with very seri- ous injuries. The injuries included 11 broken ribs and a fractured sternum and Mrs Houghton also had to have her spleen removed. The subsequent police investigation found that Penman was using his mobile phone at the time of the colli- sion on a call lasting 39 seconds. The court heard that Penman had col- lected the victim and her friend from South Hykeham and was travelling to


the north of Lincoln. Both passengers were sat in the back of the car. Penman was using his phone as he drove towards Skellingthorpe round- about where traffic was queuing. He collided with the rear of a DAF skip lorry, fatally injuring Ms Short and injuring her friend and himself. He pleaded guilty to the offences at Lincoln Crown Court last May before recent sentencing via video link. Andrew Scott, prosecuting, said: “Ini- tially the journey was uneventful. However, as the PHV proceeded on the bypass the defendant received a call on his mobile phone whilst driving. “Mrs Houghton noticed that he was taking a call. She mentioned this and as a result Wendy Short said: ‘He’s on the phone. He shouldn’t be doing that’. “He had the mobile phone in his left hand held up to his left ear. The next thing that happened was a big bang. The defendant drove straight into the

back of a skip lorry.” Other drivers went to assist and Mrs Houghton repeatedly told one witness: “He was on the phone. I told him to get off it as he wasn’t concentrating.” Police were called and Penman told an officer: “My phone went and I auto- matically picked it up. The truck in front had stopped. It was my fault.” Judge John Pini QC, passing sentence, told him: “On any view this is a deeply tragic case. This happened because at the time of the collision you were on your mobile phone. This is the reason you failed to notice the change in speed of the skip lorry and was the cause of the collision. “I would be failing in my public duty if I did not impose an immediate prison sentence. “This case demonstrates the real dan- gers of using hand-held mobile phones. Here such use has killed one person and seriously injured another.”


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102