Jaydee Cooper, aged 16, was yesterday handed an anti-social behaviour order at Plymouth Magistrates Court which she must comply with for three years.Good luck with that…
But hang on, she’s 16, so why are we allowed to know her name?
After hearing representations from The Herald, the Magistrates decided it was in the public's interest to know of the order and permitted Cooper to be identified.It seems she’s pretty well known to anyone in the criminal justice system already:
Cooper, of Desborough Road, St Judes, had 24 convictions relating to 37 offences including shoplifting, assault, making threats and damaging property.And of course, has no doubt seen not a single day of jail time for any of them.
All the usual features are here:
The court heard the teenager had experienced a troubled up-bringing and was living in care provided by Plymouth City Council.Which provided a surprising bit of ‘mitigation’:
Defence for Cooper, Owen Lawton, questioned if the local authority had done enough before making the Asbo application. He said three letters addressed to the "parent or guardian" of Cooper had been sent when she was under care provided by the council.Well, yes, she did. She had the council, in lieu of her natural parent, but as we’ve seen from Winston Smith’s blog, their powers to actually provide real care, or even tell these wastes of oxygen the first ‘No’ they’ll have ever heard in their short brutish lives, are limited.
He said: "She had no parent or guardian."
He also said not enough had been done to ascertain the views of Cooper's mother. But the court heard when she was eventually contacted she supported the application.What’s that old advice for lawyers, ‘Never ask a question to which you don’t already know the answer’?
Looks like he needs to go back to lawyerin’ school…
The Asbo handed to Cooper ruled she must not enter the city centre shopping area, including Royal Parade, Drake Circus, where she is already banned, Charles Cross, Bretonside, Cobourg Street, Western Approach and the Eastern side of Union Street.Well, of course! Wouldn’t want the little darling to think she was being punished, would we?
She is however permitted to break this condition on Wednesdays between 10am and 2pm so she can go shopping.
Although how does she have money to go shopping anyway? God, we aren’t giving her ‘pocket money’ while she's in so-called 'care', are we? I suspect the answer’s ‘Yes’…
Magistrates warned Cooper if she breached the order she could face up to five years in jail.Note the ‘Could’. It’d be more honest to tell her she probably won’t.
It does raise the question, though, of just when we should decide that some people are no longer worthy of effort. And, having made that decision, what should we do with them?