All posts by Andrew Wesley/h3>

Assaults on Emergency Workers

The penalties for assaults on emergency workers have been in the news recently.

Is there a specific offence covering assaults on emergency workers?

 Until now the only specific offence has been that of assaulting a police officer. This is a summary only offence which carries a maximum of 6 months imprisonment.

There has always been an option to charge an offender with more serious offences, such as actual or grievous bodily harm, if the injury to the officer is more serious, and this will remain the case.

However, most lower level assaults on emergency workers have had to be charged as common assault – an offence carrying a maximum of 6 months imprisonment.

What is changing?

A new law has been passed which will create a new category of common assault – assaulting an emergency worker in the exercise of their functions.

If your neighbour was a police officer and you got into a dispute and assaulted them, the new provisions would not be triggered as they would not at that time be acting as a police officer (‘in the exercise of their functions’), but if you assaulted a police officer while being arrested, the provisions would be triggered.

The Assault on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018 came into force on 13 November 2018.

Who will this cover?

“emergency worker” means—

(a) a constable;

(b) a person (other than a constable) who has the powers of a constable or is otherwise employed for police purposes or is engaged to provide services for police purposes;

(c) a National Crime Agency officer;

(d) a prison officer;

(e) a person (other than a prison officer) employed or engaged to carry out functions in a custodial institution of a corresponding kind to those carried out by a prison officer;

(f) a prisoner custody officer, so far as relating to the exercise of escort functions;

(g) a custody officer, so far as relating to the exercise of escort functions;

(h) a person employed for the purposes of providing, or engaged to provide, fire services or fire and rescue services;

(i) a person employed for the purposes of providing, or engaged to provide, search services or rescue services (or both);

(j) a person employed for the purposes of providing, or engaged to provide—

(i) NHS health services, or

(ii) services in the support of the provision of NHS health services, and whose general activities in doing so involve face to face interaction with individuals receiving the services or with other members of the public.

It is immaterial whether the employment or engagement is paid or unpaid.

What is the penalty?

The maximum penalty will increase from 6 to 12 months’ imprisonment.

Is there any further effect?

The legislation will also create a statutory aggravating factor. This means that if a different offence is charged (such as actual bodily harm, for example) where the victim is an emergency worker, it will be seen as an aggravating factor which merits an increase in the sentence to be imposed.

Within the current sentencing guidelines, it is already an aggravating factor to assault a person serving the public, but the legislation will put the position on a statutory basis.

Why is this happening?

There has been an increase in assaults on emergency workers in recent years.

Government statistics reportedly show

• 26,000 assaults on police officers in the last year
• 17,000 on NHS staff
• an increase of 18% in assaults on firefighters in the previous 2 years
• a 70% increase on assault on prison officers in the 3 years up to 2017.

As a result of these increases, new legislation was proposed, and this will be the first time there is a specific offence extending protection to those carrying out the work of an emergency service.

Whether this sentence increase will deter assaults remains to be seen, with most commentators being sceptical at best.

How can we help?

Those facing allegations of assaults on emergency workers will always know that the court will treat these allegations seriously, with or without another piece of legislation.

If you are arrested or know that the police wish to speak to you about an offence of assault upon an emergency worker or any other allegation then make sure you insist on your right to free and independent legal advice.

The advantages of such early advice legal advice can be found here.

If you have already been interviewed or face court proceedings we can still make a real difference to the outcome of your case.  Legal aid may well be available to fund your defence at court.

You can read about a case where we made representations causing the prosecution to drop a case here.

This case illustrates the care we take to ensure a guilty plea to assault on medical  is the right choice for a vulnerable client.

We have offices across the East Midlands.  You can find your most convenient office here.   Alternatively you can contact us using the form below.

All posts by Andrew Wesley/h3>

We have prepared our response to the latest Government consultation on legal aid funding entitled Amending the Advocates’ Graduated Fee Scheme.  This time the Ministry of Justice wishes assistance on how to spend what is described as £15m of ‘new’ money on fee payments for those undertaking Crown Court advocacy.

It is optimistically hoped that the proposed fee scheme will attract suitable candidates to both the Bar and solicitors’ profession.

Unfortunately it seems unlikely that these proposals address these aspirations once the fee structure is looked at in detail.

For example, this view expressed within the consultation document is in conflict with the aim of properly funding those entering the profession.

Surely this paragraph ought to be acknowledging the damage to the junior end of the profession by choosing this as a priority?  Instead it trumpets redistribution of existing funds to the cases that more senior counsel undertake?

We wonder if anyone involved in the initial negotiation, particularly the Young Barristers Committee, is regretting expressing this opinion by now?

The consultation document seems to express a genuine interest in the views of the profession.   As a result there may be every reason to engage with the consultation.  It is hoped that organisations such as the Law Society, CLSA and SAHCA will be making strong arguments on behalf of the solicitors’ profession as a whole and preparing responses detailing the realities of the fee cuts.

Having said that, we also approach the consultation with a certain amount of cynicism.  The last two substantial consultations have resulted in Judicial Review proceedings when the government ignored the opinions proffered.

The Ministry has pledged a review of the current scheme.  It is hope that this isn’t the same level of commitment that the government has shown in relation to its review of LASPO.  We still wait for that to be concluded while people continue to be excluded from the legal aid scheme.

We have a number of concerns about the fee scheme in its entirety.  If fails to reward those at the beginning of their careers and then penalises specialist advocates later in their career who deal with complex cases with a high page count.

It represents a significant cut in fees for many types of case and will not assist with in preserving the future of criminal advocacy.

Our response to the consultation on amending the Advocates’ Graduated Fee Scheme

The Law Society response can be found here.

The Criminal Bar Association response can be found here.

All posts by Andrew Wesley/h3>

Who is Ben Stokes?

Ben Stokes is the England cricketer who was charged with affray and acquitted by a jury.

But the video showed him hitting someone?

It did, his defence was that he was acting in self-defence, you can hit someone and still be not guilty of an offence in certain circumstances.

Why did the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) charge him then?

It is not for the CPS to decide whether or not a person is guilty, its role is to assess whether there is a reasonable prospect of conviction, if there is sufficient evidence to proceed and it is in the public interest to do so.

In this case, the issue was for the court or jury to decide whether or not he was acting in self-defence or of another.

How does a jury make their decision?

Jurors are not allowed to discuss their deliberations with anyone outside of the jury room, so we can never know what discussions took place.

You can read more about how jury trials work here.

The Judge provided them with a “route to verdict” document which sets out the questions that the jury needed to ask themselves before coming to a verdict.

What was the “route to verdict”?

1.  Did Ben Stokes use, or threaten violence towards another? If no, not guilty, if yes move to the next question.
2. Did he genuinely believe that it was necessary to use or threaten that violence so as to defend himself and/or another?
3.  If yes, was the force reasonable in the circumstances he perceived them to be? If it was, then the verdict is not guilty.
4. If no, move to the next question.
5. Was the conduct of all of them, taken together, such as would cause a person of reasonable firmness present at the scene to fear for his personal safety? If yes, the verdict is guilty, if no or it may not have been, the verdict is not guilty.

What is reasonable?

 The jury was given further guidance that only the use of reasonable force can be lawful.

A person who genuinely thinks he or another is about to be attacked may react on the spur of the moment. He cannot realistically be expected to weigh up precisely how much force he needs to use to defence himself or that other person.

If he has done what he honestly and instinctively thought was necessary, then that would be strong evidence that it was reasonable. On the other hand, using force out of all proportion to what he genuinely anticipated might happen to him or another, then that would be unreasonable.

How can our expert criminal solicitors help?

We will be able to give you advice as to the strength of the evidence in public order offences, the availability of defences and likely sentence upon conviction.  You will always be helped by seeking this advice at the earliest possible opportunity.

As a result, if you are arrested for a public order offence or know that the police wish to speak to you about an offence of then make sure you insist on your right to free and independent legal advice.

The advantages of such early advice legal advice can be found here.

If you have already been interviewed or face court proceedings we can still make a real difference to the outcome of your case.

Legal aid may well be available to fund your defence at court.

We have offices across the East Midlands.  You can find your most convenient office here.   Alternatively you can contact us using the form below.

In this case, Ben Stokes elected to be dealt with at the Crown Court rather than the Magistrates’ Court, we can advise you on the options available to you and the consequences of those options.

All posts by Andrew Wesley/h3>

We have previously written about the increase in prosecutions over recent years where there is no statement from the alleged victim in the case.  The victim might not be supporting the prosecution or may even be unknown.  This will lead to arguments over the admissability of evidence.

The reasoning is that even though a victim is unwilling to assist the Prosecution, a person should not be able to avoid responsibility for offending that they have committed.  Of course, there are a number of risks to proceeding without evidence from the person who ought to know best what, if anything, happened.

Prosecution rely on principle of Res Gestae

In order to present such cases the prosecution will often rely on a rule of evidence called Res Gestae.  This allows hearsay evidence that would usually not be allowed in court to be used as admissable evidence.

You can read more about this rule of evidence here.

Unfortunately we have noted that the prosecution seek to rely on this exception to the usual rules of evidence in a number of cases where it doesn’t apply.

As a result it is vital to have an experienced solicitor who is able to argue your case in Court to try and avoid this from taking place.

Recent case defended by Chesterfield crime solicitor

Chesterfield Crime Solicitor Kevin Tomlinson was recently presented with such a scenario.  His experience told him that the prosecution was trying to admit evidence in circumstances where it was not admissable.

His skill and expertise as an advocate persuaded the Magistrates that he was right.  The evidence was ruled inadmissable and his client was found not guilty.

Domestic violence allegations

Kevin’s client faced charges of common assault and criminal damage within a domestic setting.  Police officers attended the alleged victim who gave an account implicating stating that our client was responsible for the offending.

She alleged that he had been aggressive and threatening towards her when she returned home with a friend after a night out.  After the friend left he had then assaulted her in the bedroom and caused damage to a wall and perfume bottle.

The police had obtained a recording of the 999 call.  The initial complaint had also been recorded on police bodycam footage.  Finally she made a written witness statement.  Here friend had also made a statement describing our client’s behaviour before she left.

During the course of the investigation, the complainant had provided a further statement stating that she no longer supported the prosecution and wished to withdraw her complaint.

From the outset of the case our client had set out a defence.  He told the police that he had not done what was alleged against him and was therefore not guilty of the offences.

Key witness did not attend the trial

In light of the later statement taken from the complainant it was not surprising that the complainant failed to attend Court for the trial. The supporting witness also failed to attend.

Despite this, the prosecutor informed Kevin that they wished to proceed with the case.  They intended to use the account provided by the complainant in the 999 call as well as what she told the police upon their arrival.  The reasoning was that this evidence would be admissable using res gestae.

Kevin argued against the admissability of evidence relating to these allegations.  The key requirement, that the witness was so overcome with circumstances of the situation that she could not have made the allegations up, did not exist in this case. She was calm during both the call and the conversation.  The assertion that the allegation could not have been made up did not stand up to scrutiny.

Additionally, Kevin was able to argue that instead of trying to admit evidence in this way the prosecution, who had known for weeks that the witness did not intend to attend Court, should have taken the appropriate steps to have her there.  The doctrine of Res Gestae should not be used to avoid calling witnesses as it prevents the prosecution challenging the evidence.

Not guilty verdict after trial

Kevin’s argument found favour with the Court who refused the Crown’s application meaning the Prosecution had no option but to offer no evidence against Kevin’s client.

This case highlights the importance of instructing a solicitor.  It is important that you do not rely on a solicitor appointed by the court as their responsibilities to you in your case are limited.

Had the defendant in this case been unrepresented it might be unlikely that they would effectively challenge the admissability of evidence of this nature and the outcome could have been very different.

Instruct an solicitor who is an expert in the admissability of evidence.

Criminal trials will always feature a certain level of complexity.  The best way to prepare for trial is to seek legal advice at the earliest possible moment.

If you are arrested or know that the police wish to speak to you about an offence of then make sure you insist on your right to free and independent legal advice.

The advantages of such early advice legal advice can be found here.

If you have already been interviewed or face court proceedings we can still make a real difference to the outcome of your case.  Legal aid may well be available to fund your defence at court.

A further example of a successful argument against the admissability of evidence can be found here.

We have offices across the East Midlands.  You can find your most convenient office here.   Alternatively you can contact us using the form below.

All posts by Andrew Wesley/h3>

Allegations of supplying drugs or possessing them with intent to supply are more serious than simply possessing the drugs.  Such allegations are likely to lead to lengthy custodial sentences.

What drugs are illegal to supply?

It is an offence to supply a controlled drug. This includes the ones that will immediately spring to mind such as heroin, cocaine, cannabis and amphetamine. It also includes what are called Class B and C drugs such as steroids, khat and ketamine. Some of these may be lawful to possess but not supply.

What is meant by supply?

 The word “supply” is to be given its everyday meaning. Buying drugs on behalf of a group of people and handing them out, even for no profit, is still supply.

Handing drugs to someone else for safe-keeping may not be supply (although even that is not clear cut), but if that person holds the drugs intending to return them to the first person, he may be guilty of possession with intent to supply.

The law relating to possession of drugs is some of the most complicated criminal law on the statute book.

How does the prosecution prove an intent to supply?

The easiest way to prove this is by an admission of intent. Other ways include an assessment of the circumstances in which the drugs are held and the circumstances and behaviour of the alleged offender.

The quantity of drugs, possession of cash, drugs paraphernalia, “tick lists” or debtors’ lists, and phone records and messaging recovered from mobile phones will all be considered.

If there is insufficient evidence of an intent to supply the prosecution may accept a plea to simple possession.

What about proving possession?

To have an intent to supply you also have to be in possession of the drug. A person has in his possession anything which is in his physical custody or under his control.  You need to have knowledge of the drugs, but you do not necessarily have to have them in your pocket or vehicle.

What sentences are given out for supplying drugs?

The maximum sentence for Class A drugs is life, for Class B and C it is 14 years imprisonment.

If an adult defendant has two or more convictions for a Class A drug trafficking offence, a seven-year minimum sentence applies, unless it is unjust to impose such sentence.

The offence is aggravated for adults if the offence is committed on or in the vicinity of school premises at a relevant time.  A relevant time is when the premises are in use by persons aged under 18 or within one hour of the start or end of such time.

The offence is also aggravated if a courier under the age of 18 is used in the commission of the offence.

The sentencing court will use the specific sentencing guidelines for drug offences. Those involved in the supply of Class A drugs are more likely to receive custodial sentences. The Court will consider factors such as quantities, the role played, whether it is street dealing or a commercial enterprise, financial gain and, as always, credit is given for a guilty plea.

Drugs offences attract some of the lengthiest prison sentences handed out in our courts.

The full sentencing guidelines for drug supply and other offences can be found here.

Instruct criminal solicitors experienced in defending allegations of supplying drugs.

As you can see such offending is treated seriously by the courts so it will be important that you seek early advice from a criminal law solicitor.

We assess the evidence on your behalf, advise you as to plea and can give you an indication of likely sentence if convicted. There are a number of possible defences available that we will consider.

As a result, if you are arrested or know that the police wish to speak to you about an offence of supplying drugs then make sure you insist on your right to free and independent legal advice.

The advantages of such early advice legal advice can be found here.

If you have already been interviewed or face court proceedings we can still make a real difference to the outcome of your case.  Legal aid may well be available to fund your defence at court.

You can read more about drug supply cases that we have dealt with:

This case involved a sentencing for supplying drugs into prison.

In this case a guilty plea resulted in a suspended sentence.

Here we successfully argued for a discharge for allowing premises to be used for cultivation of cannabis.

In this case one of our Higher Courts Advocates successfully challenged prosecution expert evidence at trial.

We have offices across the East Midlands.  You can find your most convenient office here.   Alternatively you can contact us using the form below.