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 admissible.

His skill and expertise as an advocate persuaded the Magistrates that he was right.  The evidence was ruled inadmissible 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.

All posts by Andrew Wesley/h3>

There has been much ado in the press about police forces undertaking random checks on motorists and revoking licences at the roadside on the basis of a vision test. So, what are their powers?

Can the police stop me?

Under section 163 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 a police officer in uniform has the power to require a driver of a vehicle on a road to stop.  It is an offence to fail to comply with such a request.

Does the officer have to be in uniform?

To use this power the officer has to be in uniform. There is a common law power, however, for an officer not in uniform to request a vehicle to stop although there would be no penalty for failing to comply.

What is the law about vision and driving?

You must be able to read a registration plate from 20 metres (approximately five car lengths). It is an offence to drive with uncorrected defective eyesight.

Can the police ask me to do a roadside eye test?

You could be asked to undertake the test voluntarily. Otherwise, there must be a suspicion that you may be guilty of driving when you cannot comply with the vision test requirement. If the officer does suspect, you can be required to submit to a test.

Section 96 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 provides this power. The test can be carried out between 8am and 9pm, only in daylight.

What if I refuse to do the test?

If the officer has a reasonable suspicion that you have been driving while your eyesight is such that you could not pass the test and you refuse to do so, you are committing an offence.

What could happen?

Failing to stop for a police officer, under section 163, can be punished by a fine.

Driving with uncorrected defective eyesight or refusing to submit to a test of vision carries a fine, discretionary disqualification and an obligatory endorsement of three penalty points.

What about my licence, can it be revoked?

If you fail a vision test at the roadside, or fail to comply, the police can immediately report this fact to the DVLA.

There is a fast track system whereby a decision to revoke your licence can quickly be made, such a decision taking place within hours. Once your licence is revoked, it will be not be returned until you can demonstrate that your eyesight meets the required standard.

Your licence being revoked will not prevent a prosecution for the offences outlined above.

Why is the police vision test in the news?

The power for fast-track revocation has existed since 2013. The power is now being widely reported as three police forces have announced their intention to undertake such checks at the roadside, this may be extended nationwide.

Based on a study by the Association of Optometrists it is estimated that some 1 million people in the UK are driving illegally. RSA Insurance estimates that eyesight problems cause nearly 3000 casualties per year on the UK roads.

The police forces involved in the initiative have said that they will be gathering data as to the extent of any issues. Potentially, this could lead to a further mandatory vision test at some stage after the practical driving test.

Speak to an expert motoring law solicitor

We are experts in road traffic law and can advise you if you are facing investigation or prosecution. To discuss any aspect of your case please contact your nearest office.

Alternatively you can use the contact form below.

All posts by Andrew Wesley/h3>

While many will agree that the Criminal Justice System is not necessarily the most appropriate place to deal with those suffering from mental health difficulties.  Unfortunately, there is, sadly, a regular overlap between the two.  As a result we need to have particular skills to represent vulnerable defendants.

This means that the staff across our offices have experience of dealing with those who are vulnerable defendants, and are experienced in gaining our clients’ trust to be able to assist them throughout the court process.

During his years as a criminal defence solicitor, Chesterfield crime solicitor Ben Strelley has represented many vulnerable individuals before the court.  His manner means that he has the ability to engage with clients whatever their difficulties to gain their trust.

Here is a recent example of his representation in a case that required sensitive handling.

Assault allegations against a vulnerable client

Ben’s client was an inpatient at the Hartington Mental Health Unit in Chesterfield.  She faced two accusations of common assault.  The complainants were two of the nurses caring for her.  She faced a separate charge of causing damage at Derby hospital prior to her arrival at the unit.

Our client had no recollection of any of the incidents.  She did, of course, accept that in these circumstances the staff had no reason to lie.  In circumstances where a client had no such vulnerabilities then the case would normally involve straightforward advice to plead guilty.  The evidence was strong and there was no defence to advance.

In the circumstances of this case, however, it was important for Ben to make further enquiries as to his client’s mental health at the time of the incident.  It may be that this could afford a defence, or significant mitigation, or allow him to make representations that the prosecution is not in the public interest.

Ben investigated this aspect of the case with the prosecution.  He was then provided with a medical report from a relevant doctor who confirmed that she did have the necessary capacity at the time of the assault allegations.  The report was silent about her health at the time of the criminal damage matter.

As a result, Ben advised his client to plead guilty to the assaults.  He was able to negotiate with the prosecution to drop the criminal damage charge.  Bearing in mind the other pleas that prosecution was no longer in the public interest.

Sentence following guilty pleas

Normally an assault on a member of NHS staff while at work is likely to result in, a the very least, consideration of a prison sentence.  Ben was of the view that the unique circumstances of his client’s health were such that the court ought to be of significant importance upon sentence.

In the end the Magistrates agreed with Ben.  Rather than a prison sentence or community order his client received a small fine and was ordered to pay some compensation.

Ben’s client was delighted at this outcome because it meant that she would be able to continue with her treatment in the community with the aim of overcoming her acute mental health difficulties.

Instruct a criminal solicitor specialising in vulnerable defendants

Case such as this demonstrates the importance of instructing a solicitor who has compassion, patience and communication skills to achieve the best outcome for vulnerable defendants.

In this case, Ben had to gain the trust of his client, speak to the prosecution about the strength of the evidence, and then persuade Magistrates to depart from the usual sentencing guideline for cases such as this.

You may wish to consider other reasons why you might want to instruct VHS Fletchers over other firms of solicitors.

If you or a family member or friend are in the position of being spoken to by the police as a result of an alleged incident involving medical staff then you can contact your nearest office here.

Alternatively you can use the contact form below: