A DEFENDANT who could not get to a Crown Court on time yesterday because of a huge traffic jam was handed his sentence by the judge — over his mobile phone.

Aftab Ahmed was on his way to the court in Ipswich from his home at Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk, when he was caught up in the jam caused by a pile-up on the A14.

The 41-year-old was able to call his lawyer on his mobile to explain the difficulty but Judge Caroline Ludlow decided to continue with the case in his absence because she had a full diary and had to sit in a county court later in the day.

Mr Ahmed, who was facing a charge relating to his bankruptcy, had already admitted failing to explain his financial affairs in full to the Official Receiver.

After consulting law books the judge said that she did not know of a reason why she should not pass sentence over the phone because she was not imposing a custodial sentence.

Rachel Bonner, clerk of the court, said that Mr McCarthy phoned Mr Ahmed to make sure that he was happy with the unusual situation and to check that he was not driving.

The judge had already ruled out a custodial sentence and said that she was unaware of any legal restrictions that would prevent her from passing sentence in the defendant’s absence.

After hearing evidence in his defence from Mr McCarthy, the judge dialled Mr Ahmed’s mobile number from a telephone in the court and sentenced him to 140 hours of community service and ordered him to pay £750 costs. The court clerk said that the judge had asked Mr Ahmed if he was comfortable with being sentenced over the phone, and when he agreed, she spoke to him in open court and repeated his responses out aloud.

Mrs Bonner added: “The judge had to be somewhere else, and she didn’t want to incur more costs by adjourning the case. I have arraigned defendants over the phone before and taken their pleas, but I have never heard of someone being sentenced in the same way before.”

Mr Ahmed, a father of one but divorced, said: “I took the view that I might as well get it all over with and hear what was going to happen to me on the phone. I had to sit very quiet and not interrupt.

“She asked me if I understood everything, and I agreed. Then she asked me if I had anything to say, and I had a bit of a moan about the costs she wanted me to pay.

“It does not really bother me that I might have made legal history. At the end of the day I think the court dealt with me in an appropriate manner.”

A spokesman for the Bar, which represents barristers, said it may have been the first time that a defendant had been sentenced by mobile phone.

“The reason for normal sentencing being done in court is so that people can see justice being done. but if everybody was happy with the arrangement, then it can still be heard to be done.

“We now regularly have video links so that defendants and courts can communicate. This would seem to be relying on the same principle.

“It seems an innovative way of doing things and certainly saved court time and costs.” Mr Ahmed had earlier admitted failing to explain to the Official Receiver the loss of £22,500 between the presentation of his bankruptcy petition in November 2002 and the start of his bankruptcy in June 2003.

Lisa Brett, a spokeswoman for the Lord Chancellor’s Department, said: “It is a matter for judicial discretion to deal with a case this way. We never really comment on the decisions that judges make, but it seems to me that the judge in this case made a sensible decision to the convenience of all parties to save court costs and time.

“These days it is not always essential for defendants to be in court, because we have video links for them to give evidence if necessary.”

Explore UK News

• Crime News

• Education News

• Health News

• Scotland News

Times Recommends

• Milk: do we need a dairy godmother?
• DIY: the women doing it for themselves
• First double portrait of Princes unveiled