Burglars urinated all over nuisance neighbour's Worcester flat

Ben Spares and Ashley Goodes even filmed what they had done to the man's Worcester bedsit in the block of flats where they all lived, making no attempt to hide their actions from staff who reported them to police.

Spares, 20, of Copcut Lane, Stinton Lea, Droitwich and Goodes, 33, of Sansome Place, Worcester, both admitted the burglary and were spared immediate jail sentences at Worcester Crown Court yesterday.

The attack on the bedsit at Heenan Court, Sansome Place, Worcester, took place on November 21, 2018 while the victim was away.

Judge Robert Juckes QC said both men had behaved at the time as if they were 'entitled' to do what they had done and made a recording of it.

The judge explained that the building was the type of accommodation often kept for students and made up of individual bedsits.

"At the time you were doing it you didn't try to disguise it from the staff who were working at the home" he said.

The judge accepted there had been 'a falling out' between the victim, Mr Williamson, and the two defendants.

He said: "There must have been a falling out - you decided that you were in a position where you could make his life a misery.

"While he was away you broke into his bedsit and you ransacked it, doing a good deal of damage and stealing some of his property."

The value of the items stolen or damaged was placed at £1,000 and both men will have to pay that sum between them in compensation.

Judge Juckes said: "Perhaps, as far as he was concerned, the worst of what you did was that not what you stole, it was the element of destruction, the fact you desecrated as well as damaged his flat, spraying sauces around his furniture and urinating in parts of it. It was despicable behaviour. It was also burglary."

The judge placed the burglary in category one, the most serious within the sentencing guidelines because of the 'significant damage' the men caused and the aggravating feature that it was a group activity.

Judge Juckes said the burglary was 'not typical of most burglaries', telling the defendants they had made 'absolutely no attempt to disguise what you were doing'.

Mr Williamson was later asked to leave the property, not because of the attack but because of the way he had been behaving up until this point the court heard.

"He had behaved in such a way as to make people, other residents of the flats, feel threatened. He was also using and abusing drugs and it was for that reason he was invited to leave" said the judge.

The judge said he could not reject out of hand the suggestion Mr Williamson had stolen money from the defendants.

Judge Juckes dealt with both of them on the basis there had been 'a degree of provocation' although he made clear 'that is not a finding against him' (Mr Williamson).

Judge Juckes took into account that Spares had done 'everything you can to set yourself on a new course', that he had work and independent accommodation.

Other factors weighing in his favour were that he did not pose a high risk of reoffending, there was a realistic prospect of rehabilitation, he had no history of poor compliance with court orders and strong personal mitigation.

The effect of custody would be that Spares would lose his accommodation and his job, the 'best hope' he had of a 'trouble-free and crime-free future'.

Although the judge said he was 'not impressed' by the mitigation for Goodes, 13 years older than Spares, he argued that he could not impose an immediate sentence on him and a suspended sentence on his co-defendant when both had been involved.

He handed Spares and Goodes an 18 month prison sentence suspended for two years and placed both of them on an electronically monitored curfew for six months.

In the case of Spares this will run between 7pm and 6am and Goodes between 7pm and 7am. Spares must pay £600 in compensation to the victim and Goodes £400 to reflect their different means.

Once they have paid the compensation they must pay £250 each towards costs.