All posts by Andrew Wesley/h3>

While many will have spent the summer having holidays and day trips out with the family, our solicitors and police station representatives at our Chesterfield office have been taking their own day trips out of the town to provide legal advice and representation.

Unfortunately, these have not been to the seaside to enjoy an ice cream but to ensure that our clients who live local to Chesterfield receive advice and representation from lawyers that they know and trust.  We often a nationwide service at both the police station and courts.

 

Countrywide legal advice and representation

The following are amongst the places recently visited by staff from our Chesterfield offices:

• Buxton Police Station
• Harrogate Police Station
• York Magistrates Court
• Manchester Magistrates Court
• Staines Magistrates Court
• Sheffield Magistrates’ Court
• Boston Magistrates Court
• Lincoln Crown Court

All of our Clients involved in the police investigations or cases before these courts had links to the Chesterfield area.

Their first priority was to have a solicitor local to them for ease of providing instructions rather than local to the police station or court they had to attend.  They wished VHS Fletchers solicitors to deal with their case on the basis of previous dealings with our expert criminal solicitors or because they had been referred to us.

It was important to them to have a solicitor or accredited police station representative that they could trust.

When we were contacted by these clients we were only too happy to travel to provide them with the service that they wished.  Our clients faced a range of offences, including

• assault
• theft
• criminal damage
• breach of court orders

Advice on your case under the legal aid scheme

As we have a contract with the government to permit us to provide expert legal advice and representation under the legal aid scheme.  This means that our advice in the police station will always be free of charge to you in the police station.

There are many advantages to seeking advice in the police station and you can read about those here.

Many of our clients will be also be entitled to legal aid in the Magistrates’ Court.   Nearly all will be eligible for legal aid to ensure representation for cases before the Crown Court.

You can read more about these types of legal aid here.

In the cases at the police station or the courts set out above, all of our clients had the benefit of free legal advice.

Instruct criminal defence solicitors who will go the extra mile for you

You may choose your solicitor by reputation.  You might want to choose a solicitor with an office near to where you live, no matter where your case will be heard.

If you require the assistance of a firm of expert criminal defence solicitors who are more than happy to travel to provide you with nationwide criminal advice and representation, then look no further than VHS Fletchers.

We will go that extra mile (or if need be the hundreds of extra miles) needed to ensure that you get the best outcome possible.

Read more about the benefits of instructing our solicitors and litigators here.

You can contact our Chesterfield office for emergency advice day or night, 365 days a year on 01246 387999.

Alternatively you can use the form below.

All posts by Andrew Wesley/h3>

If you have provided a statement for the prosecution or for the defence you may be called as a witness in court to give evidence at the defendant’s trial.

Is there help available for me as a witness in court?

The Witness Service can provide assistance for any witness who has to attend court. This support can be both practical and emotional. They can provide information about the court process, show you the courtroom prior to the trial and assist with any expenses claim.

If you are a prosecution witness the Crown Prosecution Service witness support unit will be in touch with you and will provide contact details for witness support. If you are a defence witness the solicitor representing the defendant can provide you with support and also provide the contact details for the local witness service.

What happens at court?

 When you attend as a witness in court, you can sit in a separate witness room rather than the general waiting area if you wish. You will be spoken to by the prosecution or defence lawyer, as appropriate, before the trial starts.

Will I be told what to say?

 Whilst the lawyer will be able to provide you with information on trial procedure, layout of the court and the roles of those involved they cannot “coach” you on the evidence you will give as a witness in court. There are very strict rules about training witnesses because this could have a potentially negative effect on your evidence.

Can I read my statement?

You will be provided with a copy of your statement prior to the trial so that you can read through it before you give evidence. You will not usually be allowed to have it with you when you give evidence though. If the rules of evidence allow, you may be able to refer to your statement during evidence in order to refresh your memory.

Can I speak to any other witnesses?

 If there are a number of witnesses, you will not be allowed to communicate with anyone who has given evidence while you are still waiting to do so.

If you are a defence witness, you should also not discuss anything about the trial with the defendant once the trial hearing has started.

The prosecution and defence lawyers are not allowed to discuss any evidence that has been given with you before you give your evidence.

What happens in court?

You will be called into court at the appropriate time and asked to swear on a holy book or affirm that you will tell the truth. You will then be asked questions by the prosecutor first if you are a prosecution witness and then by the defendant’s representative, or vice versa if you are a defence witness. If the defendant is not represented, you may be asked questions by a court appointed lawyer in his place if the court do not feel it is appropriate for him to ask you questions directly.

Once you have finished giving evidence you may be released from court or you can stay in the public gallery to watch the remainder of the trial.

I’m really worried, do I have to attend court?

 If you think that you would benefit from “special measures” such as screening from the defendant or giving evidence from remote video link you should contact the prosecution, defence solicitor or court as appropriate.

A witness summons can be issued if the court is aware you do not want to go to court.  This is something that you should speak to a solicitor about. If you fail to attend court in answer to a witness summons, then you may be arrested and brought to court.

Contact a criminal law specialist about being a witness in court

It may be that you have given a witness statement to the police and received a witness summons.  Alternatively it might be that you are thinking of doing so but worried about the potential consequences.

You might have provided our office with a statement in respect of one of our clients, or are considering doing so and want to discuss this further.

Contact your nearest office or the office preparing the defendant’s case to discuss any of the matters further.

Alternatively please use the contact form below.

All posts by Andrew Wesley/h3>

If you are suspected of driving with excess alcohol in your body, you may be asked to provide a breath sample at the roadside. If that sample is positive, you are likely to be arrested and take to the police station.  Failing to provide a breath specimen may mean you commit a separate offence.

Why do I have to provide another specimen at the police station?

 Once at the police station you will be asked to provide an evidential sample of breath, the sample taken at the roadside is just a preliminary test to see if you are over the limit.

But I wasn’t over the limit or driving!

 It is crucial to note that the fact you were not driving does not mean that you can refuse to provide a sample of breath, nor does it matter if you weren’t over the limit.

If the police have reasonable grounds to suspect that you were driving and you refuse, so failing to provide a breath specimen without good reason, you may be guilty of the offence.

 What if I can’t provide a breath sample or the machine is broken?

 If it is accepted, for whatever reason, that you cannot provide a breath sample, you will be asked to provide a sample of blood or urine.

Failure to provide the requested sample without good reason is an offence. Which sample is requested (blood or urine) is at the officer’s discretion and is not for you to choose.

What if I wasn’t warned?

 You have to be warned that failing to provide a breath specimen or other sample is is an offence.  If the warning is not given this may be a bar to conviction.  As a result it is important that you seek early legal advice.

 What is a refusal?

 A straightforward refusal , or not trying hard enough constitutes a refusal and the offence of failing to provide a specimen of breath.

The taking of a sample cannot normally be delayed for you to be given legal advice although the police may allow that to happen.

Examples from cases where reasonable excuse has not been found include the following:

• a desire to see a doctor
• the illegality of detention
• mistake
• religious belief
• the sight of blood
• stress.

Is there a defence to failing to provide a breath specimen?

It is a defence to show that you had a reasonable excuse for failing to provide a breath specimen. A medical reason such as asthma or a genuine needle phobia could constitute a reasonable excuse.

What is the sentence on conviction?

 A conviction will result in a mandatory driving disqualification of at least 12 months and is often in the region of 18 months or longer.

If you have a previous conviction in the last ten years for a drink or drug driving offence, the minimum disqualification will be three years.

As well as a driving ban you could be fined, given a community order or sentenced to up to 6 months in prison.

Will it different if you were not driving?

 If you were suspected of being in charge of a vehicle before failing to provide a sample rather than driving, the penalty is different.

You may still be disqualified, but if the court chose not to, they would impose ten penalty points. The maximum prison sentence for this offence is three months.

Instruct an expert motoring law solicitor

As you can see, a conviction for failing to provide a breath specimen can have serious consequences and the law relating to defences can be complex.

As a result, if you are arrested or know that the police wish to speak to you about an offence 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.

An example of how we have defended a case recently can be found here.

We made representations to have a prosecution discontinued in this case.

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>

Dame Vera Baird QC, the Police and Crime Commissioner for Northumberland, has once more sought to bring issues of the prosecution of cases of domestic violence to the fore.

She has commissioned and published a report in which she denounces defendants who plead not guilty in cases alleging charges of domestic violence as ‘gaming the system’ in order to have cases dropped.

Magistrates refusal to grant CPS adjournment

The report maintains that defendants are using the period between plea and trial to intimidate partners into failing to attend court.  Once a witness doesn’t attend, it is claimed that the courts are all too quick to refuse adjournment requests, leaving the prosecution with no alternative but to offer no evidence, resulting in a not guilty verdict.

In 13 cases out 32 observed at one court centre, Magistrates refused an adjournment when the complainant failed to attend.  As a result, the cases were dismissed despite arguments to the contrary from the CPS.

Late change of plea

In 21 cases at one court centre, defendants entered a not-guilty plea and asked for a trial. On the various dates fixed, the observers noticed, 12 of them pleaded guilty as soon as the victim turned up and before they had given any evidence.

Criticism of defence practitioners

Defence solicitors also attract criticism.  Following a guilty plea or verdict, it is believed that they offer ‘irrelevant’ mitigation based on their client’s drunken state.

Of course, these complaints fail to acknowledge two important matters:

• being drunk is an aggravating feature in sentencing guidelines rather than mitigation
• whether a defendant was drunk may, however, allow the court to treat an isolated incident as being our of character

What is the real complaint?

In reality, the complaints within the report seem to relate to the following:

• the failure to give proper training to Magistrates
• a failure to properly fund support staff
• under use by police and CPS of the charge of coercive or controlling behaviour
• insufficient support of the complainant to ensure they attend to give evidence
• failure by police or CPS to present full information in support of applications for restraining orders
• evidential failings that impacted on the court process
• courts not ordering Newton Hearing to decide a factual basis for sentence where certain parts of an incident are denied

All of these are capable of change subject to the necessary resources being provided.  The defence cannot be said to be responsible for any of them.  At first glance the analysis of the limited number of cases in the study does not acknowledge the legal considerations and framework that would apply in many of the cases.

Conclusions

The report is based on a limited number of cases in a single geographical region so the conclusions that could or should be drawn are perhaps limited.

While defendants can be confident that they may gain an advantage in pleading not guilty and having the matter listed for trial they will continue to do so.  Further, it is their right to test the evidence at trial.

The labelling of the entering of a not guilty plea as ‘gaming the system’ is unhelpful.  Some defendants will do so hoping to gain the advantage of a witness not attending, others (perhaps the majority) will plead not guilty because they have a defence to the charges brought.

We regularly provide advice and representation at contested domestic violence trials.  An example of such a trial can be found here.

Those defendants who in the end plead guilty will lose credit for a plea that could have been entered earlier and will find it extremely hard to argue that any genuine regret or remorse exists.  Sentencing for domestic violence allegations are governed by a specific guideline.

The police and the prosecution have the evidential tools at their disposal to build many cases without the need for a complainant to attend.  Some considerations relating to such cases can be found here.

The full report can be found here.

Instruct an expert in defending domestic violence allegations

Allegations of domestic violence are treated seriously by the courts.  They also need handling with sensitivity.  The law can be complex, particularly where the prosecution do not seek to rely on the complainant’s evidence.

As a result, if you are arrested or know that the police wish to speak to you about an offence of domestic violence 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.

All posts by Andrew Wesley/h3>

Today it was announced that the Government had suffered another setback in its relentless attack on publicly funded legal representation.  Since being forced to withdraw its controversial two-tier plan for criminal work it has been forced to re-instate certain prison law cases into the scope of legal aid and had to abandon a scheme to tender for Housing Duty Solicitor schemes on the basis of both quality and price.

The Government had reduced payments by an unsustainable 37% argued The Law Society, putting at risk the viability of firms providing advice and assistance under the legal aid scheme.  This would have a knock on effect for potential clients around the country as local solicitors’ practices had to close.

It is hope that this latest decision will force the Ministry of Justice to the negotiating table to devise a scheme that sees economically viable rates of pay in the most serious and complex of cases.

 

Bindmans Press Release

Bindmans, the solicitors instructed by The Law Society in judicial review issued the following press release on 3 August 2018:

“Today, a Divisional Court comprising Lord Justice Leggatt And Mrs Justice Carr DBE upheld a judicial review challenge brought by the Law Society to a decision made by the Lord Chancellor to introduce a 40% cut to the maximum number of pages of prosecution evidence (‘PPE’) that count for payment of criminal defence solicitors. The regulations introducing the cut will be quashed (para 143 of the judgment).

In practical terms, the cut has meant a huge amount of work on the most complex Crown Court cases has been unremunerated since December. Payments to criminal defence solicitors have been up to 37% lower, but the Legal Aid Agency has expected precisely the same amount of work to be done as before. This was the first occasion in which a cut of this kind had been made to Criminal Legal Aid.

The Divisional Court’s judgment is highly critical of the way the cut decision was made. Discussions with the Law Society on reform of the LGFS had been in train (para 23), but were “terminated”  shortly before Ministry of Justice officials announced proposals to make the cut were announced in 2017. However, consultees were not told about or shown the analysis of costs trends officials had prepared for the Lord Chancellor to answer the “crucial question” of whether a cost judge’s decision had caused a substantial increase in LGFS costs and undermined the policy intention of the scheme (para 93). The Court observes (para 86) “no reason – let alone a good reason – has been given for not disclosing during the consultation process the LAA analysis and its results…”, concluding (para  97): “the failure to disclose this information was a fundamental flaw in the consultation process which made it so unfair as to be unlawful.”

An impact assessment accompanying the consultation paper had compounded the unfairness by giving a“misleading” impression of the basis for the decision (para 94):

“It should also go without saying that consultees are entitled to expect that consultation documents will not be positively misleading.  When a draft Impact Assessment is published which purports to set out the “evidence base” for the proposal, including an analysis of costs and benefits and a statement of key assumptions and risks, the reader would understand that any analysis relied on to estimate the increase in expenditure which it was the policy objective to reverse was described in the Impact Assessment.  The fact that the responsible Minister has certified that the Impact Assessment “represents a fair and reasonable view of the expected costs, benefits and impact of the policy” would further reinforce that understanding.”

As to the Lord Chancellor’s arguments that consultees ought to have deduced there was an analysis and sought it, the Court comments (para 93):

“It is difficult to express in language of appropriate moderation why we consider these arguments without merit.  The first point, which should not need to be made but evidently does, is that consultees are entitled to expect that a government ministry undertaking a consultation exercise will conduct it in a way which is open and transparent.”

The analysis was disclosed for the first time during the course of the litigation and then analysed by the Law Society’s expert witness, Professor Abigail Adams, who identified fundamental errors. The Court went on to hold that these errors meant it had been irrational for the Lord Chancellor to rely on it, It was (para 122):

“we see no escape from the conclusion that the LAA analysis was vitiated by methodological flaws and that no reasonable decision-maker could reasonably have treated the figure of £33m [of increased cost] produced by that analysis as an estimate of increased expenditure attributable to the Napper decision on which reliance could reasonably be placed.”

The Law Society was represented by John Halford, Farhana Patel, Theo Middleton and Patrick Ormerod of Bindmans LLP and barristers Dinah Rose QC and Jason Pobjoy of Blackstone Chambers.

John Halford said today:

“Legal Aid was established, and should function as, a basic, non-negotiable safeguard of fair process and individual liberty in criminal cases. But rather than cherishing this vital part of the British legal system, successive ministers have undermined it with over a decade of cuts based on carelessly made decisions like this one. Had the Law Society not stepped up to defend criminal defence solicitors, the fundamental flaws in the analysis on which this decision was based would never have come to light and their irrationality would have escaped proper scrutiny.””

The full judgement of the case can be found here:

Judgement in The Law Society v The Lord Chancellor

Contact one of our criminal law specialists

We provide advice and representation under the legal aid scheme for cases heard before the Crown Court.  Some information about this legal aid scheme can be found here.

You can find your nearest office here.