Crime

Man sentenced to 16 weeks for theft from Pembroke Dock Boots

Published

2 years ago

May 15, 2024

RAJ DOMNU, a 27-year-old resident of Scunthorpe, has been sentenced to 16 weeks in prison for his involvement in the theft of items valued at £1,819.53 from Boots the Chemist in Pembroke Dock. The sentence was handed down at Haverfordwest Magistrates’ Court on May 14

Domnu, residing at Frodingham Road, Scunthorpe, appeared in court via live link. The court heard that the theft, which occurred on 13th April 2024, involved a significant degree of planning and was carried out as part of a group. CCTV footage presented during the trial revealed Domnu’s leading role in the offence.

Initially convicted on April 22, Domnu’s case was reopened following an application under section 142 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980. The original sentence imposed on May 13 was set aside, leading to the reimposition of the 16-week custodial sentence due to the serious nature of the offence.

In addition to the prison term, Domnu has been ordered to pay compensation to Boots the Chemist in the amount of £1,819.53. He is also required to pay a surcharge of £154 to fund victim services and £85 in costs to the Crown Prosecution Service. The total financial penalties amount to £2,058.53, which Mr. Domnu must pay by 1st July 2024.

Presiding over the case, Magistrates Mr. Roger James Mathias (Chairman), Mr. David Andrew Fawcett, and Mr. Max Shankland emphasised the severity of the crime, citing the premeditated targeting of high-value items and the organised nature of the theft. The court acknowledged Domnu’s guilty plea in determining the sentence.

Attending solicitor Mike Kelleher of Welch and Co represented Domnu during the proceedings. The court confirmed that the defendant is not currently in custody and no bail remand days were to be counted.

This case underscores the commitment of Dyfed Powys Police and the judiciary to address and penalise organised theft activities severely. The magistrates’ decision reflects the importance of deterring such crimes and ensuring justice for affected businesses.

Crime

Carmarthen man denies coercive control allegations

Published

2 minutes ago

March 20, 2026

Court Reporter

Defendant remanded in custody ahead of further hearing

A CARMARTHEN man has denied allegations of controlling and coercive behaviour towards his partner during a prolonged period of alleged abuse.

Mark Hanson, aged 51, of no fixed abode but previously linked to Llangunnor Road, Llangunnor, Carmarthen, appeared before Haverfordwest Magistrates’ Court for a further case management hearing on Wednesday (Mar 19).

The court heard that Hanson is accused of engaging in controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate relationship, contrary to Section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015.

It is alleged that between January 1, 2024 and March 12, 2026, at Stackpole, Hanson repeatedly or continuously subjected a female to threats of violence. Prosecutors say the pair were partners at the time, and that the behaviour had a serious effect on the complainant, which Hanson either knew or ought to have known.

Hanson entered a not guilty plea to the charge on March 13.

The court was told that he has been remanded in custody ahead of the next hearing, with magistrates citing concerns that he may commit further offences, including causing injury or fear of injury to a person connected to the case.

Additional information presented to the court indicated that Hanson is currently serving a custodial sentence of two months for breaching a Domestic Violence Protection Order.

The case was adjourned for a further case management hearing, which is scheduled to take place at Haverfordwest Magistrates’ Court on Monday (Mar 23) at 10:00am. The hearing is expected to be conducted via video link and is listed for a duration of 20 minutes.

Magistrates Mr A Allison, Mrs J Morris and Mr D England presided over the hearing. The prosecution was led by Sian Vaughan, with Hanson represented by Alaw Harries of DGJ Solicitors.

Crime

Youth, 15, admits assault on police officer in Milford Haven

Published

23 minutes ago

March 20, 2026

Court Reporter

A 15-YEAR-OLD has admitted assaulting a police officer during an incident in Milford Haven.

Haverfordwest Magistrates’ Court heard that the offence took place on Saturday (Mar 1), when the youth assaulted Police Constable 573 Evans.

The defendant appeared before magistrates on Wednesday (Mar 19), where a guilty plea to common assault was entered.

The court granted unconditional bail and adjourned the case for sentencing.

The youth is due to appear again at Haverfordwest Magistrates’ Court on Thursday (Apr 2) at 10:00am for sentencing. The hearing is expected to last around 30 minutes.

Under Section 49 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, the youth cannot be identified.

Crime

Youth given conditional discharge after series of offences in Haverfordwest

Published

24 minutes ago

March 20, 2026

Court Reporter

A YOUTH has been given a conditional discharge after admitting a series of offences in Haverfordwest, including assault, shop theft and interfering with motor vehicles.

Haverfordwest Magistrates’ Court heard that the offences took place over a number of days in December 2025.

The court was told that on Saturday (Dec 6), the youth assaulted another child by beating them during an incident in the town. On the same date, they also stole two cans of Red Bull worth £5.40 from Tesco.

Further offences were committed on Tuesday (Dec 9), when the youth interfered with multiple vehicles at a vehicle repair workshop at Havens Head Business Park, Milford Haven. The offences involved attempts to interfere with vehicles with the intention of theft.

The youth appeared before magistrates on Wednesday (Mar 19), where guilty pleas were entered to all matters.

Magistrates imposed a 12-month conditional discharge for each offence, taking into account the early guilty pleas.

The court also ordered the youth to pay £100 in compensation to the victim of the assault and £5.40 in compensation to Tesco. No order for costs was made due to the financial circumstances involved.

Under Section 49 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, the youth cannot be identified.