Mr Hunn’s case – 1/5/19

Christopher Hunn, 37 from Weeley, appeared in court in connection with two driving offences allegedly taken place on 2nd February 2019.

Hunn was said to have been driving on the A12 while both disqualified from driving and not being insured to drive said vehicle. Whilst filling up a Black Mercedes, Hunn was recognised by a police officer and later arrested.

He was later interviewed at the police station where a full admission of offences was made.

He admitted that he was not legally allowed to be driving the vehicle and that the car he was driving was not his but his wife’s.

Prosecutor, Natalie Anforth stated that the defendant has had previous convictions of similar nature to the one in question. In early 2018 he was given a 42-month ban for driving while intoxicated and was has already been disqualified previously in 2004.

Hunn’s defence informed the judge and court room that after attending alcohol rehabilitation meetings for his drinking problem on previous occasions, his drinking had reduced down to ‘almost nothing’.

The court was informed that the defendant had lost his job and had a wife and four children at home.

Mr. Hunn has history of being held in custody on previous occasions, the reasons for those custodial sentences were not disclosed.

The judge concluded that the most ‘pragmatic’ course of action was to wait for the case to hear from mitigation and to hear the rest of the information later on that day.

He added that it was more than likely that custodial action would be ordered.

In reflection, this case was quite simplistic in terms of the information given to the court therefore it would be straightforward to report on.

The only issue with reporting the case in full would be the reporting restrictions that would stop some of the information from being published. For example, the fact that Mr Hunn has a record of previous convictions of similar nature to the current charges he is facing, if this were to be published in a news report this could amount to clouding the judgement and thinking of the jurors involved in the case. Or causing substantial risk of prejudice or impediment to the active legal proceeding– if it were to reach a trial by jury.

EB