Metal thieves in West Hill given ‘wake-up call’
Two men who pleaded guilty to stealing metal from West Hill were handed conditional discharges by magistrates and told it should be a ‘wake-up call’.
Walter Lee and Patrick Mahon, both 21, admitted to taking �100 worth of scrap from a utilities firm replacing a water main in the village last month.
The men, who are gypsies and live at Princes Paddock in Farringdon, were given two-year conditional discharges by magistrates sitting in Exeter on Tuesday.
A 14-year-old boy was also charged with the theft, but pleaded not guilty and his case was dismissed.
The court heard how a resident phoned the police on Thursday, February 9, after seeing men load pieces of metal from behind a road barrier into a white Ford Transit van.
You may also want to watch:
Miss Baker, prosecuting, said officers stopped the defendants’ vehicle in Exeter around midday, and found the old water main in the back.
A representative from South West Water confirmed it had been removed by their contractor, Dare Utilities, in West Hill.
Most Read
- 1 New owner sought for prominent Sidmouth seafront businesses
- 2 Property of the Week: Fortescue Road, Sidmouth
- 3 Sidmouth woman's legal challenge over care home Covid deaths begins at High Court
- 4 Ideas invited for new use of former Sidmouth utility building
- 5 Village panto group secures prestigious national award
- 6 Sidmouth Repair Cafe set to reopen later this month
- 7 As fuel poverty bites we ask who cares for the carers?
- 8 Keep safe and enjoy return of Tar Barrels spectacle
- 9 Supermarket chain planning four new stores in East Devon
- 10 Gold award success for Sidmouth and 'outstanding' community projects praised by South West In Bloom
Initially the men said they had bought the metal from a workman while on their way to Ottery St Mary, but later admitted to stealing the scrap, which they intended to sell to a dealer in Exeter.
Magistrates said they did not ‘take the matter lightly’, and hoped their arrest and conviction would be a ‘wake-up call’ to the two defendants, who were also each ordered to pay �30 costs.
