Director of Public Prosecutions wins High Court battle for Willesden teen to stand trial
Alison Saunders is the Director of Public Prosecution (Picture: GLENN COPUS�) - Credit: Glenn Copus
The Director of Public Prosecutions has won a High Court case for a Willesden teenager to stand trial for impersonating his friend and doing his community service for him.
The youth is accused of doing community service for his friend (stock image) - Credit: Archant
He was accused of plotting to pervert the course of justice by completing “all or a proportion” of his friend’s 200 hours of unpaid work.
Prosecutors say he stepped in to pose as his older friend after the latter was convicted of driving offences by Tottenham Magistrates in November 2014.
The case against the youth, who cannot be named for legal reasons, was thrown out in July last year by Willesden Youth Court, which ruled that he had “no case to answer”.
But Alison Saunders appealed to the High Court on a point of principle and won.
Her counsel, Paul Lodato, said that doing someone else’s unpaid work was “a dishonest arrangement to frustrate a sentence passed by a criminal court”.
“The effect of a criminal sentence was fundamentally undermined and cheated by impersonation”, he told the court.
Most Read
- 1 Three found guilty of murder for involvement in fatal gunfight
- 2 Brent triple shooting leaves victims in hospital
- 3 Pensioner dies and bus passengers injured in Wembley collision
- 4 Victim speaks out after Hampstead machete robbery
- 5 'Dangerous' uni student jailed for 38 years for 'random' knife attacks
- 6 Man shot in his heart outside Queen's Park flats named
- 7 QPR boss Beale bemoans missed chances in Blackpool defeat
- 8 London Assembly: TfL urged to rethink plans to cut 78 bus routes
- 9 'Predator' acted as masseur to assault women
- 10 Product sold at Tesco recalled due to risk of disease-causing bacteria
Sir Brian Leveson, sitting with Mr Justice Holroyde, allowed the DPP’s appeal and ordered that the youth must now stand trial.
The judge ruled: “This case concerns continuing and ongoing criminal proceedings intended to enforce the requirement to carry out unpaid work.
“Providing cover for failing to carry out the work frustrates the course of justice.”
