A Brighton man who has been accused of persistently harassing women will not face trial after his most recent arrest because he was wrongly charged.
Jamie Lee Parsons, 32, an unemployed father of one, formerly of Stanley Court, Lewes Road, Brighton, was charged with causing a public nuisance.
At Lewes Crown Court, Judge Stephen Mooney threw out the case – formally dismissing the charge – and indicated that Parsons might have grounds for appealing against a similar previous conviction. To read about his previous case, click here.
The judge said that Jamie Parsons should have been charged with a public order offence – with a maximum prison sentence of six months.
Instead, he spent eight months in prison on remand, having spent since July trying to persuade prosecutors and the courts that he should not have been charged with causing a public nuisance.
On Wednesday (21 December), the day after he was freed, Parsons told the court: “I had to surrender my tenancy so now I’m homeless. I stayed with mother but that can’t last.”
While Judge Mooney said that he was merely applying the law to the facts of the matter, he also told Parsons: “You put yourself in a position where you could have been arrested – and you were.”
The Crown Prosecution Service said on Wednesday that it would not challenge Judge Mooney’s ruling which follows in full.
Judge Mooney said: “This case has something of a chequered history caused predominantly by attempts made by both the court and the defence to obtain evidence about the defendant’s mental health and fitness to plead.
“It has been listed for trial on a number of occasions but each time it has failed to be heard.
“The case came before me on (Tuesday) 6 December for an application to extend the custody time limits. I agreed a short extension because it was possible to list the trial on (Wednesday) 21 December.
“In the course of the application, the defendant said that he wanted to challenge the lawfulness of the charge that he faced. I adjourned the case to the day before the trial to allow this argument to be heard.
“I note from the court log that the defendant has since (Monday) 11 July on more than one occasion questioned the legitimacy of the charge but it appears that nobody has really applied their mind to his concerns.
“It appears that this is because of a number of factors, namely he has pleaded guilty to a similar offence in the past, he has mental health difficulties and he is representing himself.
“None of these factors in my view individually or in isolation are a good reason for not carrying out a review of the charge in the light of the defendant’s concerns.
“I have a number of alternatives in how to proceed in considering this application but all lead to the same binary question: is the charge made out or not? If it is, then a trial will take place, but if it is not then the case will end today.
“It seems to me that the fairest way to proceed is to invite the prosecution to undertake to offer no evidence should I rule against them.
“In the highly unlikely event that, notwithstanding this agreement and faced with an adverse finding, they choose to proceed, I would have to consider staying the indictment as an abuse of process. I say this for completeness because I am confident that such a course would not be necessary.
“The defendant is charged with one offence of causing a public nuisance in that on (Friday) 4 March 2022, he was seen to approach a number of females and seek to engage with them.
“This, in the view of the only witness, Caitlyn White, appeared to make the women uncomfortable. She saw him behave this way towards at least four different women.
“She then saw the defendant approach her friends and then say, ‘I just told her that I was going to rape her and she smiled.’
“This led to her approaching a security guard who called the police and the defendant was subsequently arrested.
“I cannot help but note that significant parts of the witness statement amount to hearsay and it does not appear that there has ever been consideration of what parts are admissible and the effect on the prosecution case should those parts be ruled inadmissible.
“The offence of public nuisance requires the following: the defendant does an act not warranted by law or omits to discharge a legal duty, if the effect of the act or omission is to endanger the life, health, property or comfort of the public in the exercise or enjoyment of rights common to all.
“It is important to note that this offence is retained because of its flexibility in adapting to those areas not covered by a particular statutory provision. Where such a provision applies, the normal course will be to prosecute the statutory offence (Rimmington; Goldstein [2005] UKHL 63).
“As Lord Denning said in Attorney-General v PYA Quarries Ltd [1957] 2QB 169 CA, ‘a public nuisance is a nuisance which is so widespread in its range or so indiscriminate in its effect that it would not be reasonable to expect one person to take proceedings on his own to put a stop to it.’
“This view was endorsed in Rimmington which held that an individual act of causing a private nuisance could not become a criminal nuisance merely by reason of the fact that the act was one of a series.
“And that individual acts causing individual injury to several different people rather than to the community as a whole or a significant section of it could not amount to the offence of causing a public nuisance, however persistent or objectionable the acts might be.
“Central to the concept of common injury to members of the public is that it is not permissible to apply the offence to multiple separate incidents on different members of the public and call them a common injury.
“In my judgment this is exactly what the prosecution has done in this case. The behaviour of the defendant, unpleasant as it was, cannot in law be categorised as a public nuisance.
“What he did fell within the statutory regime of the Public Order Act 1986 and in particular sections 4 and 5 of that act. I can see no reason why charges were not brought under this act.
“The defendant has remained in custody since March of this year, a period of nearly eight months.
“Charges under sections 4 and 5 are now time barred but, even if they were not, would attract a maximum of six months’ imprisonment under section 4. Section 5 is not imprisonable.
“The defendant is currently unrepresented and suffers from poor mental health.
“The consequence of my ruling is that a jury properly directed could not convict the defendant on the charge he faces,
“I have made this ruling on the most favourable interpretation of the prosecution case without making any ruling on the admissibility of any hearsay.
“It is, however, highly likely that, in the event of a trial, I would rule significant parts of the evidence of Ms White as inadmissible.
“That being so, rather than invite the prosecution to offer no evidence, I will vacate the defendant’s not guilty plea and give him leave to extend the time in which to dismiss the charge which I allow.
“I will list the case for mention before me tomorrow (Wednesday 21 December) so that the prosecution can make any representations as to their future intentions with regard to Mr Parsons.
“I have provided the defendant with a hard copy of this ruling and have uploaded it to the digital case system because it may be relevant to him, his legal advisers and the prosecution should he wish to attempt to appeal against his previous conviction for the same offence.”
That’s nice decision: just in time for Christmas