By Jo Best, 29 November 2004 13:35
NEWS A teenager found to be taking photos and videos of the inside of a courtroom on his mobile phone has been sentenced to six months in custody.
Nineteen-year-old Shaun Nash was convicted on Friday after he was spotted, by a juror, in the public gallery of Bristol Crown Court recording video and taking photos on his mobile. He was arrested and charged with contempt of court.
The robbery trial had to be aborted because of Nash's action and the teenager was sentenced to six months in a young offenders' institution.
Judge Michael Roach described his actions as "extremely serious" and said the conviction was necessary to show other that mobile phones can not be used in court.
Nash told police he was "just having a laugh". Nash's phone was found to contain two pictures and some short films, which the judge described as like a montage of "my day out at the Crown Court".
Comments
There are 20 comments. Join the discussion
1. Ed
I'm sorry? He got HOW LONG? Without a trial? Without right to appeal? Remind me how much that virus writer got? A £57 fine wasn't it? Too right judge, wouldn't want to send the wrong message about these things would you?
Sheesh!
2. GK
erm... he's 19 and goes to a young offenders institute? why not throw him in with the big boys so he can become a real criminal?
Thank god for that sharp eyed juror, imagine what could of happended if he got away with it.
3. Craig Golby
Get real !!!
Yes he shouldnt have done it, and yes he should be prosecuted for something, but 6 months custodial !!
When are judges in this country going to get a wake up call !!
You can mug, steal and get of with less, you can make your neighbours life hell and just get a slap on the wrist, but god forbid you take a picture in court !!
4. anonymous
Blimey! With a custodial sentence, criminal record, loss of self-confidence and all the other stuff that goes to make it difficult to escape the criminal justice system for the rest of your life I'M SURE HE'S LEARNED HIS LESSON.
Wow! Personally I think the judge is the criminal here! He's just stuffed this guy worse than any assailant could of without actually committing murder.
5. Richard
Don't be naive; of course he was banged up for Contempt of Court.
His actions caused a trial for robbery to be abandoned at a cost of £1,000s to the taxpayer. Maybe a guilty robber walked because of his foolishness / stupidity / malicious actions.
We don't get all the facts in this story. Who was he? Why was he in court? Was he connected to the defendent?
However, secret filming in court is a very serious matter with potentially devastating effects on justice. How would you tell the difference between a villain's henchman intimidating the jury and some prat of a teenager with a new toy just havin a larf.
He won't serve the full 6 months - maybe two. Of course a few nights in the cells followed by community service and confiscation of said mobile phone would be more appropriate - and are going to hurt him more when his mates see him for the prat he is.
6. Pat.h.etic
Ironic that a legal term is called in camera.
Six months custodial demonstrates the seriousness of this heinous crime and just how in touch with modern day society our esteemed
law leaders are.
This popular punishment reflects the effectiveness of our much envied infallible legal system --- not.
7. Kevan Chippindall-Higgin
Well, it just goes to show. Break their rules and you are ruined for life. Certainly the guy should ahve got into trouble, but 6 months stir is insane.
The reason that this happens is that the judiciary is the one area of public life without any sort of scrutiny, voluntary or otherwise.
I would hate our judges to be political appointees like in the states, but they have got to clean up their act.
The rise in lawlessness is glaring proof that the judicial system is utterly incapable of applying punishments to fit the crime.
You cna go to jail for taking pix in court, for not paying the TV licence, driving too fast and I dare say lots more. Serial thieving, thumping coppers, violent and aggressive behaviour all get off with a scolding.
Prisons should be the place where the terminally ill, dangerous or incurable end up.
Only those who have been given every chance to rehabilitate and refused them should end up inside. As for the TV licence, confiscate the TV and video. They will soon get the message.
8. anonymous
This just goes to show how the legal system in the UK is now.
How pathetic that the courts have got nothing better to do, yes i agree that you shouldn't use a camera in court, but this is ridiculous.
Good to know that muggers etc will have a nice easy time with no danger of getting caught or prosecuted.
The police are too busy dishing out speeding tickets (makes their crime clearup rate look good) and the courts are to busy prosecuting people for stupid mistakes.
Rant rant rant.
9. royston
how the hell did he get the phone into the courtroom? the court by me removes them for safe keeping and asks you to turn them off before you get to the metal detector scanner as well. if this teen has taken his into the room then its his own fault as he has planned to do so and used a certain amount of deception in a very serious place. its his own fault and its this kind of mentality from teens that we are trying to get rid of. 6months was a bit harsh but i agree with the judge.it was contempt and was dealt with properly. i wish teens were dealt with so well in ALL aspects like this then you wouldnt see all the crap they cause at nights and to their neighbors and the comunity. have you seen the tv progs on what these idiots do in glasgow and other citys at night time its like going to war just in the name of boerdom and something to do. the system is partly to blame but these kids are mentaly deficient and its easy to see everywhere.
10. anonymous
What a splendid message to send out to the nation's youth. Commit any one of a dazzling range of offences (or several for that matter) and get a community service order, ASBO or your very own social worker. Camera in court, get six months. Proportional? I think not.
11. Anon
Well, I'd heard that the government were cracking down on mobile phone use behind the wheel, but I didn't realise the new powers extended to the Courtroom. 6 months, 3 points and £60 fine. Ouch!
12. James Button
Same as 29th offence of driving while drunk disqualified and uninsured.
But that's contempt of the court, not contempt of the law, and others right to life.
If he'd 'mowed down' the judge outside the court, driving a stolen car while high on drink and drugs, he may have got 6 months probation, or perhaps just time on a racing circuit to teach him how to drive faster in a safer manner.
13. Zakala
Obviously it's contempt of court and obviously it's cost money to abandon the trial, but how much more will 6 months imprisonment cost the taxpayer???
This is a highly inappropriate sentence when the thief that stole my car and wrote it off got 250 hours community service (and put up all your insurance premiums).
14. BEV FOURNIER
PROBATION WOULD HAVE
BEEN ENOUGH. POSSIBLY
COMBINED WITH PUBLIC
SERVICE. IT'S NOT GOOD
TO TOSS AN OTHERWISE
INNOCENT KID INTO THE
MIX WITH PREVIOUS
OFFENDERS.
BEV F.
15. Radical Meldrew
The 'legal' system in this country has become little more than a revenue collecting joke which now helps accelerate crime instead of preventing it. For a murder, you get help and early remission. For Revenue fraud or a minor court infraction like this and it’s a mini life sentence.
The problem is that habitual criminals now accept jail as a way of life so it is no real deterrent to them. But it still costs a few bob!
The system throws the book at decent folk because:
A) They are easily located to arrest.
B) They are willing pay their dues and accept their fate.
C) Judges are really scared of the law-abiding public also losing faith in the system and 'letting go'. (We would then witness a gradual regression until we become something akin to America during its Wild West days.) Some people would argue that we have already arrived!
So folks, just resign yourselves to the fact that hardened criminals are usually dealt with more leniently than the rest of society purely to save money. It would pay us all to make a concerted effort to brush up on our rights and police procedures as a form of protection from our ‘protectors’. Most criminals in the know have already done this and regularly walk free because of a minor technicality or infringement of the system.
A non-biased government review of our ridiculous legal system that readily adopts modern standards but insists on retaining antiquated ideas is long overdue.
Yours, disgusted of Surbiton.
16. Gollum Bollucks
Re: a camera in camera: Help me out here - he was in the public gallery and using a memory aid. What's the problem?
Why did a trial have to be aborted by more of the public witnessing public testimony?
I agree his actions are ‘extremely serious.' They are real and viable. Cameras should be used to cover all persons in custody and detention all the time, with the archived recordings being completely reviewable by all advocates, representatives and auditors. Abuses would be sharply reduced, in loco parentis.
Mobile phones most certainly can be used in court - the judge wants his words to change that reality. Does the judge NOT believe that cameras smaller than mobile phones are not routinely sold and used? I just got four spams yesterday offering me a color camera smaller tham a quarter in diameter.What's wrong with a child documenting personal experiences and activities?
How can a minor be sentenced without a trial? Or even an adult? In the States, contempt of court can be found, but is subject to legal hearing and review.
In the States judges are ELECTED, and subject to continuous review. Since when is being terminally ill or incurably ill (insane) an offense against the law? (The Germans practiced capital punishment against such identified persons 1936-1945.)
This is interesting because the UK is the place that is teaching the rest of the world about the safeguards of camera monitoring minors and persons in institutions.
How much more will 6 months imprisonment cost the taxpayer???
The States also have review of ‘cruel and unusual punishments' which are prohibited, and the idea that one can sentence purely for example is dangerous to everyone.
"Letting go" IS the point of the system unless, "this kind of mentality from teens that we are trying to get rid of." In which case you'ld best begin slaughtering your children wholesale, now, because that is exactly the kind of attitude our new technology age demands for survival in the future.
17. anonymous
You are too hard on the judge. He is high tech. The judge is clearly paranoid and helplessly homophobic, and suspected the lad was attracted to the judge and wanted to see him through his robes using the filter at home. Yes?
Check out the story on Peeping Tom Vodaphone filters.
18. anonymous
Reads strangely with the judges view recently that a hit-and-run deserved a £70 fine, burglars don't deserve custodial time, judges dance round the law that restricts everyone else's pensions etc. The people bringing the courts and legal system into disrepute are the judges more than anyone.
19. anonymous
I have contempt for any court that hands down such a ludicrous penalty for a minor and stupid breach of the law. The culprit is unlikely to commit the same offence again.
Judges have too much power in these matters. An explanation of the error and a small fine would have been appropriate. Now the taxpayer has to stump up for the new trial AND for keeping this unfortunate under lock and key.
Courts in this country seem to penalise stupidity more harshly than genuine criminality. No wonder the prisons are full. But then, the criminals, the courts, the police, prisons, and lawyers are all members of the judicial economic complex.
20. Dr Colin Parsons
Re Your comment:
"Where the law would have stood, had he been drawing really poor quality pastel sketches of the trial, the Round-Up is not sure.", in fact in just the same position as that is banned as well. If you listened to Radio 4, you would have heard the artist who does the court pictures for the BBC, saying she has to memorise what is going on, with the aid of her own short hand, as she is not allowed even a quick sketch in court!