I noticed the following story in The Telegraph this morning and having thought a little more about it I still cannot work out what the magistrates were playing at other than acting like twats for the sake of it (emphasis mine):

Sandwiches poisoned 47 West Midlands Police officers

A former shop owner whose sandwiches gave 47 West Midlands Police officers food poisoning has been given a four-month suspended jail sentence.

Muriel Morris, 70, of Great Barr, Birmingham, pleaded guilty to four counts of breaking food hygiene laws at Birmingham Magistrates’ Court.

Nine of the officers were taken to hospital after eating the sandwiches at a protest briefing on 4 July, 2009.

The food was from Meal Machine Cafe, Nechelles, which Morris no longer runs.

The magistrates ordered her to pay £16,482.70 in legal costs.

Morris, of Dorrington Green, was also ordered by magistrates on Monday to obey a night-time curfew for one month.

Birmingham City Council, which brought the prosecution, said one of the offences related to the sandwiches and tinned tuna being unfit for human consumption, due to the presence of Staphylococcus aureus organisms.

Aside from raising a wry smile when reading the headline and being somewhat surprised that they didn’t try to use some anti-terror laws on her (more on that below), why is a curfew necessary for this old dear?

She is 70 years old, gets a huge fine and suspended sentence but then gets tagged and a curfew order – all for making dodgy sandwiches ffs.

What are they stopping her doing other than possibly going to bingo once a week and swapping recipes for poisonous sandwiches with all the other old biddies (think along the lines of a Harridan League here).

It seems to me that the magistrates decided that they may as well use a curfew order simply because they can and probably have some quota to fill which would be missed unless they dished out a few more. There was possibly also the extra temptation “to make an example” as she had poisoned some of State Enforcers (formerly known as Her Maj’s Constabulary) rather than just some random ordinary people.

It still seems pretty pointless in my opinion.

On the subject of terrorism offences, I noticed this one a few weeks ago which just goes to show that the laws originally passed for use in extreme circumstances only are now routinely used probably due to the vast array of things that were potentially criminalised in the various Acts.

A businessman has been charged under the Terrorism Act after he broke through a police cordon and tipped open two suspect packages to prove they were harmless.

James Mullan ducked under police tape and emptied old clothes and shoes from bags left in Ipswich town centre after become frustrated by the lengthy wait for a bomb scare to be resolved.

Mullan, a watch repairman, was given a conditional discharge at South East Suffolk magistrates’ court after his ‘reckless’ behaviour  last month.

Police closed the market on the Cornhill in Ipswich and evacuated nearby buildings and a market after the bags were found abandoned at 2.30pm on November 17.

Mullan, of Kesgrave, Suffolk, became upset about the closure continuing while police waited for an Army bomb disposal team to arrive from Colchester, Essex.

And at 5.10pm he took the law into his own hands and dodged around police to open the bags in a council customer service centre beside the town hall.

The 62-year-old was arrested when he emerged from the office and told police that the bags were harmless.

…

Mullan admitted a charge of breaking through a police cordon, an offence under Section 36 (2) of the Terrorism Act 2000.

District Judge David Cooper gave him a conditional discharge for a year and ordered him to pay (£85 costs.

Judge Cooper told him: ‘You were reckless and impatient. As an upstanding member of the community you must abide by police cordons.’

Interestingly, does the judge’s statement there mean that cordons do not apply to various scrotes, lowlives and ne’erdowells?