Crime

Crown court judge orders unusual no-insurance case back to magistrates

Published

2 months ago

October 3, 2025

A ROUTINE no-insurance conviction against a pensioner has developed into an unusually complex legal battle, after Swansea Crown Court ruled that magistrates must take another look at whether a guilty plea entered two years ago was in fact valid.

The case concerns Niall Taylor, 75, of Haven Drive, Milford Haven, who was convicted at Haverfordwest Magistrates’ Court in September 2023 of driving without insurance and driving otherwise than in accordance with a licence.

At Thursday’s hearing (Oct 2) before Her Honour Judge Catherine Richards, Mr Taylor, representing himself, told the court he had pleaded guilty in 2023 only because he did not have his insurance documents with him. He said he had been assured in open court that if he later found the paperwork he could return under section 142 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 to have the case reopened.

Judge Richards explained that normally the Crown Court cannot hear an appeal after a guilty plea. “The main purpose of today’s hearing is to find out if Mr Taylor’s plea in the Magistrates’ Court in 2023 was equivocal,” she said. “The Crown Court has no power to allow an appeal after a guilty plea was made by a defendant, but there are special circumstances in which this can be done.”

Mr Taylor then entered the witness box and was sworn. In his evidence he said that at the time of his original hearing in September 2023 he was advised to plead guilty as he did not have his insurance documents with him, but he was assured by the magistrates that he could later return to court under section 142 if he found them. He explained that, although he later attempted to have the case reopened, those attempts were unsuccessful, leading to his appeal now being considered at Swansea Crown Court.

The judge invited the Crown Prosecution Service to make observations, but they declined. Judge Richards then announced that the case would be sent back to the magistrates’ court.

“This is no criticism of the magistrates in Llanelli who refused to reopen the case, nor is it an indication as to my view of Mr Taylor’s prospects of success,” she said.

The judge referred to correspondence from the insurance company suggesting that an expired driving licence would invalidate cover, but also noted that Mr Taylor’s argument rested on policy wording that extends cover to those who “have held and are not disqualified from holding” a licence. “These are obviously complex legal issues,” she said, directing the CPS to research the point before the next hearing.

The matter will now return to Haverfordwest Magistrates’ Court on Tuesday, October 14, at 11:00am.

This case is considered unusual for several reasons. Mr Taylor’s guilty plea in 2023 was not straightforward — he pleaded guilty only on the understanding that he could return if he later found his insurance paperwork. Such pleas are rare and create a procedural grey area. The question of whether failing to renew a driving licence is enough to invalidate insurance cover is also legally uncertain, particularly when policy wording refers to drivers who “have held” a licence and are not disqualified.

It is unusual for the Crown Court to intervene in this way, sending a case back to magistrates for reconsideration and instructing the CPS to research the law. The fact that Mr Taylor is representing himself against such complex arguments added to the judge’s decision to ensure the matter is properly tested.

Legal commentators suggest this could now develop into a landmark case on whether older drivers — particularly those who forget to renew their licence at the age of 70 — automatically lose their insurance cover, or whether policy wording protects them where they still hold the entitlement to drive.

Crime

Banned for 40 months after driving with cocaine breakdown product in blood

Published

2 hours ago

December 4, 2025

Sarah-Jane Absalom

A MILFORD HAVEN woman has been handed a lengthy driving ban after admitting driving with a controlled drug in her system more than ten times over the legal limit.

SENTENCED AT HAVERFORDWEST

Sally Allen, 43, of Wentworth Close, Hubberston, appeared before Haverfordwest Magistrates’ Court on Thursday (Dec 4) for sentencing, having pleaded guilty on November 25 to driving with a proportion of a specified controlled drug above the prescribed limit.

The court heard that Allen was stopped on August 25 on the Old Hakin Road at Tiers Cross while driving an Audi A3. Blood analysis showed 509µg/l of Benzoylecgonine, a breakdown product of cocaine. The legal limit is 50µg/l.

COMMUNITY ORDER AND REHABILITATION

Magistrates imposed a 40-month driving ban, backdated to her interim disqualification which began on November 25.

Allen was also handed a 12-month community order, requiring her to complete 10 days of rehabilitation activities as directed by the Probation Service.

She was fined £120, ordered to pay £85 prosecution costs and a £114 surcharge. Her financial penalties will be paid in £25 monthly instalments from January 1, 2026.

The bench—Mrs H Roberts, Mr M Shankland and Mrs J Morris—said her guilty plea had been taken into account when passing sentence.

Crime

Mother admits “terrible idea” to let new partner change her baby’s nappies alone

Published

8 hours ago

December 4, 2025

Tom Sinclair

Court hears from timid mother who was barely audible in the witness box who said she carried out no checks to establish whether Phillips was safe to be around her child

A MOTHER who cannot be named for legal reasons gave evidence yesterday in the trial of Christopher Phillips, the man accused of physically and sexually assaulting her infant son – referred to as Baby C – and causing him life-changing injuries in January 2021.

Phillips, 37 at the time, had been in a relationship with the mother for only a few weeks when Baby C, then around 10 weeks old, suffered catastrophic anal injuries at a flat in Haverfordwest, Pembrokeshire. The child was rushed to Glangwili Hospital in the early hours of January 24 and survived, but the harm was permanent. Phillips denies 11 counts of sexual penetration of a child under 13, four counts of causing grievous bodily harm with intent, and one count of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, all between December 20, 2020, and January 25, 2021. The mother denies two charges of causing or allowing a child to suffer serious physical harm and two charges of child cruelty by neglect.

The prosecution alleges that Phillips deliberately inflicted the injuries while alone with the baby during nappy changes, using a finger coated in Sudocrem as lubricant on multiple occasions, leading to escalating harm including blood in the nappies and ultimately a massive tear and prolapse. A central part of their case is that the mother repeatedly allowed Phillips unsupervised access to her son – including taking him into another room to change his nappy and shut the door – despite knowing very little about him and despite behaviour that should have raised alarm, such as his insistence on privacy and her own unease.

Late on Thursday morning (Dec 4), under lengthy and forceful cross-examination by Caroline Rees KC, prosecuting, the mother appeared composed but spoke so quietly and timidly that people in court struggled to hear her answers. She conceded point after point:

She carried out no checks to establish whether Phillips was safe to be around her child.
She allowed him to be alone with Baby C from the very start of January 2021 (possibly even before 2 January).
She ignored her own concerns and permitted Phillips to shut the door while changing the baby’s nappy, telling her not to enter or accusing her of “micromanaging”.
She accepted that this had exposed her son to “a massive risk” and had been “a terrible idea”.

The mother explained that Phillips had said he wanted to learn nappy-changing because he “never got the chance” with his own child. She initially stayed in the room but soon permitted him to take Baby C into a separate room alone. She also recounted noticing odd details during changes, such as Phillips having Sudocrem around his finger “as if it had come from a pot” – despite her not owning a pot of the cream – and him leaving the room without putting the baby’s babygro back on after fastening the nappy, which immediately struck her as wrong. A few days earlier, she had discovered extensive bruising to the baby’s bottom, a swollen testicle and blood in his nappy, prompting her to confide in family and seek medical advice, though Phillips became angry when she mentioned the appointments.

Key moments from the cross-examination

Caroline Rees KC: “You took no steps whatsoever to keep Baby C safe, did you?” Mother (barely audible): “No.”

Caroline Rees KC: “You did absolutely nothing to keep him safe, did you?” Mother: “No.”

When His Honour Judge Paul Thomas KC asked her to clarify for the jury why she let Phillips change the baby alone, she confirmed:

“I wasn’t allowed in the room. If I tried to go in he would accuse me of micromanaging.”

She said this made her feel “annoyed”, but she “ignored it”.

Caroline Rees KC put it directly to the mother:

“The signs were all there, weren’t they?”
“It was a terrible idea, wasn’t it?”
“You could have stopped it at any time – by doing the changes yourself or by ending the relationship.”
“This man wanted to have your baby on his own more than is normal.”

The mother eventually accepted each proposition, agreeing that:

Allowing Phillips to change the baby alone had been “a terrible idea”;
The warning signs that she should have stopped it were present;
Phillips’ desire to be alone with her son was greater than normal.

She admitted she had been “keen to have company” and had tolerated behaviour she should never have accepted.

Legal matters will be dealt with tomorrow morning only. Closing speeches are expected to continue into Monday.

The trial continues.

Crime

Pembroke rape investigation dropped – one suspect now facing deportation

Published

1 day ago

December 3, 2025

Tom Sinclair

DYFED-POWYS POLICE have closed an investigation into an alleged rape and false imprisonment in Pembroke after deciding to take no further action. One of the two men originally arrested is now in immigration detention and faces deportation.

The incident took place on Main Street over the weekend of 8–9 November 2025. Police were called at 9:45am on Sunday 9 November after reports of a woman in distress. She was taken to hospital for treatment.

Two men – aged 36 and 27 – were arrested at the scene on suspicion of rape and false imprisonment. They were subsequently released on bail while enquiries continued.

On Tuesday (2 December 2025), the force announced the criminal investigation has concluded and no charges will be brought. A police spokesperson said the decision took full account of the victim’s wishes.

Outcome for the two suspects:

The 36-year-old man has been transferred to the custody of the Home Office Immigration Enforcement team and is now detained pending deportation.
The 27-year-old man has been released with no further police action.

A Dyfed-Powys Police statement read: “This investigation was not terrorism-related, and we have no knowledge of any linked incident in Monkton. All rumours suggesting otherwise are incorrect.”

The force has also dismissed separate community speculation that the men entered the UK illegally on fraudulent passports or were due in court this week on terrorism charges.

Detectives stressed that every report of rape or serious sexual assault is treated seriously and victims are supported throughout. Anyone affected has been directed to specialist services, details of which are available on the force website.

No further police updates are expected.