Woman hit with fine for having XL Bully in High Wycombe among those at court
The following cases have been heard at High Wycombe Magistrates' Court...
SIOBHAN O'GRADY, 39, of Underwood Road, High Wycombe admitted using a phone while driving on at Bowerdean Crossroads, Wycombe. She was fined £357 and received six points. O'Grady must also pay £90 court costs plus a £143 surcharge.
KEVIN O'BRIEN, 57, of Terryfield Road, High Wycombe pleaded guilty to driving without due care and attention in a Mercedes on the M40 southbound at junction 1A near Gerrards Cross. He was fined £780 and received eight points. O'Brien must also pay £110 court costs and a £280 surcharge.
DAVID THOMAS, 84, of Abbey Park Lane, Burnham admitted driving without insurance on the A40 Pyebush Roundabout in Beaconsfield. He was fined £153 and received six points. Thomas must pay £90 court costs and a £61 surcharge.
TYSHAN JOHNSON, 38, of Mentmore Close, High Wycombe pleaded guilty to driving without insurance, drug driving and driving without a licence. He was caught in a Vauxhall Zafira on Marlow Hill, High Wycombe. The court heard how Johnson had THC - a component of cannabis - in his blood at the time. He was banned from driving for 36 months. Johnson must pay a £308 fine, £85 court costs and a £123 surcharge.
Read our previous court round-up here
CIARAN O'DONOGHUE, 35, of Baring Road, High Wycombe admitted drink driving on Micklefield Road. O'Donoghue was banned for 17 months and must pay a £135 fine, £300 court costs and a £54 surcharge.
MICHELLE WALLINGTON, 57, of The Pastures, High Wycombe admitted possessing or having custody of a fighting dog in High Wycombe, namely an XL Bully. She was fined £223 and must pay £85 court costs plus an £89 surcharge.
NICOLAE MUZSIKAS, 36, of Oxford Street, High Wycombe admitted two counts of theft from a shop after he stole coats from Next worth more than £400 in total. He was jailed for four weeks.
It is established in the UK that court cases should be heard in public.
This principle of open justice is acclaimed on a number of grounds: as a safeguard against judicial error and as a deterrent to perjury, to assist the deterrent function of trials and to permit the revelation of matters of public interest. Costs include victim surcharge and court charges.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Laurel County teacher found not guilty in child abuse case
LAUREL COUNTY, Ky. (FOX 56) — A Laurel County teacher was found not guilty in court on Wednesday after being charged with child abuse in February. On Feb. 7, 36-year-old Brittany Farmer was arrested in connection with an arrest warrant alleging that on Dec. 19, 2024, a woman met a Johnson Elementary School student who showed signs of being abused. Former Cincinnati Bengals player accused of assaulting police officer after alleged Covington bar 'disturbance' Laurel County teacher found not guilty in child abuse case Wolfe County man accused of child abuse Farmer was charged with third-degree criminal abuse and fourth-degree child abuse. Court records show that after an initial trial hearing in May, a jury found Farmer not guilty on both charges on Wednesday, June 4. FOX 56 has reached out to the school district for comment but has yet to hear back. This is a developing story. Stay with FOX 56 News for updates. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Lawyers could face ‘severe' penalties for fake AI-generated citations, UK court warns
The High Court of England and Wales says lawyers need to take stronger steps to prevent the misuse of artificial intelligence in their work. In a ruling tying together two recent cases, Judge Victoria Sharp wrote that generative AI tools like ChatGPT 'are not capable of conducting reliable legal research." 'Such tools can produce apparently coherent and plausible responses to prompts, but those coherent and plausible responses may turn out to be entirely incorrect,' Judge Sharp wrote. 'The responses may make confident assertions that are simply untrue.' That doesn't mean lawyers cannot use AI in their research, but she said they have a professional duty 'to check the accuracy of such research by reference to authoritative sources, before using it in the course of their professional work.' Judge Sharp suggested that the growing number of cases where lawyers (including, on the U.S. side, lawyers representing major AI platforms) have cited what appear to be AI-generated falsehoods suggests that 'more needs to be done to ensure that the guidance is followed and lawyers comply with their duties to the court,' and she said her ruling will be forwarded to professional bodies including the Bar Council and the Law Society. In one of the cases in question, a lawyer representing a man seeking damages against two banks submitted a filing with 45 citations — 18 of those cases did not exist, while many others 'did not contain the quotations that were attributed to them, did not support the propositions for which they were cited, and did not have any relevance to the subject matter of the application,' Judge Sharp said. In the other, a lawyer representing a man who had been evicted from his London home wrote a court filing citing five cases that did not appear to exist. (The lawyer denied using AI, though she said the citations may have come from AI-generated summaries that appeared in 'Google or Safari.') Judge Sharp said that while the court decided not to initiate contempt proceedings, that is 'not a precedent.' 'Lawyers who do not comply with their professional obligations in this respect risk severe sanction,' she added. Both lawyers were either referred or referred themselves to professional regulators. Judge Sharp noted that when lawyers do not meet their duties to the court, the court's powers range from 'public admonition' to the imposition of costs, contempt proceedings, or even 'referral to the police.' This article originally appeared on TechCrunch at Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Lawyers could face ‘severe' penalties for fake AI-generated citations, UK court warns
The High Court of England and Wales says lawyers need to take stronger steps to prevent the misuse of artificial intelligence in their work. In a ruling tying together two recent cases, Judge Victoria Sharp wrote that generative AI tools like ChatGPT 'are not capable of conducting reliable legal research." 'Such tools can produce apparently coherent and plausible responses to prompts, but those coherent and plausible responses may turn out to be entirely incorrect,' Judge Sharp wrote. 'The responses may make confident assertions that are simply untrue.' That doesn't mean lawyers cannot use AI in their research, but she said they have a professional duty 'to check the accuracy of such research by reference to authoritative sources, before using it in the course of their professional work.' Judge Sharp suggested that the growing number of cases where lawyers (including, on the U.S. side, lawyers representing major AI platforms) have cited what appear to be AI-generated falsehoods suggests that 'more needs to be done to ensure that the guidance is followed and lawyers comply with their duties to the court,' and she said her ruling will be forwarded to professional bodies including the Bar Council and the Law Society. In one of the cases in question, a lawyer representing a man seeking damages against two banks submitted a filing with 45 citations — 18 of those cases did not exist, while many others 'did not contain the quotations that were attributed to them, did not support the propositions for which they were cited, and did not have any relevance to the subject matter of the application,' Judge Sharp said. In the other, a lawyer representing a man who had been evicted from his London home wrote a court filing citing five cases that did not appear to exist. (The lawyer denied using AI, though she said the citations may have come from AI-generated summaries that appeared in 'Google or Safari.') Judge Sharp said that while the court decided not to initiate contempt proceedings, that is 'not a precedent.' 'Lawyers who do not comply with their professional obligations in this respect risk severe sanction,' she added. Both lawyers were either referred or referred themselves to professional regulators. Judge Sharp noted that when lawyers do not meet their duties to the court, the court's powers range from 'public admonition' to the imposition of costs, contempt proceedings, or even 'referral to the police.' Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data
