All posts by Andrew Wesley/h3>

The government has published an Offensive Weapons Bill.  The legislation is designed to signal a more stringent approach to the possession of weapons and liquids that can be used to cause harm, such as corrosive substances.

The Offensive Weapons Bill forms part of the government’s response to the recent rise in serious violence, set out in the £40m Serious Violence Strategy.  This places a new focus on early intervention alongside robust law enforcement.

What is proposed in the Offensive Weapons Bill?

The following provisions feature in the bill:

• a new criminal offence of selling – both online and offline – a corrosive product to a person under the age of 18. The substances and concentration levels of what constitutes a corrosive product are set out in the Bill.
• a new criminal offence of possessing a corrosive substance in a public place. There is a defence of possessing the corrosive substance for a good reason. There is a minimum custodial sentence in England and Wales where a person is convicted for a relevant offence a second time. The offence will carry a maximum sentence of 4 years imprisonment.
• where a corrosive product or bladed product is sold online, the defence of having taken reasonable precautions can only be relied on where the seller meets certain conditions in terms of age verification and packaging and delivery of the items
• new criminal offences prohibiting the dispatch of bladed products and corrosive products sold online to a residential address. The offence for bladed products is limited to those that can cause severe injury and includes defences for made to order items and those for sporting and re-enactment purposes. The offence will carry a maximum sentence of 6 months imprisonment.
• new criminal offences in relation to delivery companies delivering a bladed article or a corrosive product on behalf of a seller outside the United Kingdom to a person under 18
• updating the definition of a flick knife and prohibition on the possession of flick knives and gravity knives (their sale etc. is already prohibited)
• amending existing law to make it a criminal offence to possess certain weapons (such as knuckledusters and death stars) – the sale and importation of these is already prohibited. It provides for compensation of owners
• extending the existing offences of possessing a bladed article or offensive weapon on school premises to cover further education premises in England and Wales and Northern Ireland
• amending the legal test for threatening with an offensive weapon in England and Wales
• prohibiting high energy and rapid firing rifles and a device known as a “bump stock” which increases the rate of fire of rifles. Existing owners will be compensated.

How we can help

Although the contents of the Offensive Weapons Bill are yet to be made law, in recent months the rhetoric around knife-crime has been ramped up by politicians seeking to respond to public concern about knife-crime.

Judges hear this and often react by imposing increasingly long prison sentences.  These concerns have been reflected in the new guideline relating to sentencing those convicted of possessing offensive weapons.

It is our role to ensure that firstly our clients only enter guilty pleas when such a plea is appropriate.  We will begin to prepare your defence from the very beginning of the investigation, so take advantage of our free and independent legal advice in police interview.

If you are to be sentenced for an allegation involving a weapon or a blade then we will make sure that relevant factors from the background to the offending is properly advanced in mitigation.  The lives of young people in particular may be complex and some of the factors contributing to offending may be hidden.

It is our job to ensure that the full picture is presented to the court.

We provide nationwide advice and representation in criminal cases from our offices across the East Midlands.  You can find your nearest office here.

Alternatively you can use the contact form below:

All posts by Andrew Wesley/h3>

A recent report from the House of Commons Justice Committee entitled “Criminal Legal Aid” has made the following observations and recommendations after hearing evidence across a wide range of issues.  The conclusions are below.

Recent changes to the LGFS

1. The evidence we have received suggests that solicitors have serious grievances about the Litigators’ Graduated Fee Scheme, given the absence of index linking for two decades, the 8.75% cut in fees imposed in 2014, and the recent reduction to the cap on pages of prosecution evidence.
2. The Law Society’s judicial review of the Government’s decision to revise the LGFS means that it would not be appropriate for us to offer comment on the details of the scheme at this point in time. However, we have received evidence indicating a worryingly high level of demoralisation among criminal defence solicitors and threats to the economic sustainability of criminal defence firms, with negative implications for the criminal justice system—especially for defendants. We return to this issue below.
3. We consider it regrettable that the Law Society has had to resort to bringing a judicial review to pursue its grievances about the LGFS. We recommend that the Ministry of Justice take urgent steps to avoid this dispute having to be resolved by the courts. Whatever the outcome of the judicial review, we consider there should be a wider review of criminal legal aid.

Recent changes to the AGFs

1. We consider it regrettable that the Criminal Bar felt compelled to take direct action in response to the new Advocates’ Graduated Fee Scheme, given the potential for adverse impact on defendants and complainants, as well as on the functioning of the courts. However, the underlying reasons for the dispute can be understood, including the failure to ensure that fees keep pace with inflation, the staged fee reductions from April 2010 onwards, unhappiness about aspects of the revised AGFS and the Criminal Bar’s genuine and heartfelt concerns about the future of their profession and under-funding of the criminal justice system.
2. While we welcome the Government’s decision to offer additional funding for the AGFS and the Criminal Bar’s decision to accept the offer, we do not believe that ending this specific dispute has resolved the underlying issues and it is clear that many barristers remain deeply unhappy about their situation and about the future of the criminal justice system.
3. We acknowledge the challenges facing the Ministry of Justice in reworking the AGFS so that it is fair to advocates at all levels of seniority, and in ensuring that it is future-proofed against inevitable changes in the profile of Crown Court cases. We also recognise that the Ministry of Justice has made genuine efforts to address the concerns of the Criminal Bar. To provide for ongoing collaboration with the legal profession on refinements to the AGFS, we recommend that, without any further delay, a system of annual review be built into the AGFS, overseen by a panel which incorporates representatives from the Criminal Bar and solicitor organisations, Criminal Legal Aid 39 alongside Government representatives. The panel’s remit should include considering the inter-dependency between the AGFS and the LGFS, and the impact of changing the former on the operation of the latter.

Expenditure on criminal legal aid

1. As we have observed, there is a common law right to legal advice, together with a right to legal representation for an accused person under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. We conclude that there is compelling evidence of the fragility of the Criminal Bar and criminal defence solicitors’ firms placing these rights at risk; we conclude that this risk can no longer be ignored.
2. We also conclude that current difficulties in recruitment to the Criminal Bar could potentially have a negative impact on future recruitment to, and diversity within, the judiciary—in particular for judicial office holders in the criminal courts.
3. Given these risks, we welcome the decision of the Ministry of Justice to consider legal aid for criminal law within the LASPO post-implementation review, as a first step in understanding the crisis that criminal legal aid is facing. We recommend that the output from this workstream be used to underpin a comprehensive and independent review of criminal legal aid, with the aim of devising a scheme that is sustainable and user-focussed; the review should adopt a similar approach to that of the recent independent review in Scotland. This review should be launched no later than March 2019 and should be concluded within 12 months.

Declining expenditure on the Criminal Justice System

1. An effective criminal justice system which successfully prosecutes those who commit crime but which also protects the innocence of the accused unless the prosecution can prove their guilt is one of the pillars on which the rule of law is built. The effectiveness of the system also demands that the fabric of the criminal courts is properly maintained. We conclude that the under-funding of the criminal justice system in England and Wales threatens its effectiveness, and in doing so undermines the rule of law and tarnishes the reputation of the justice system as a whole.
2. Our justice system is widely admired and the UK is a jurisdiction of choice for many individuals and corporate bodies that need to resolve disputes; nonetheless, it faces competition from other jurisdictions. We conclude that the under-resourcing of the criminal justice system undermines the prospects of successfully promoting our legal system abroad, a stated objective of the Government.
3. We recommend that that the Government conduct an urgent cross-departmental review of funding for all elements of the criminal justice system, including criminal legal aid and the Crown Prosecution Service, with the aim of restoring resources to a level that enables the system to operate effectively; the details of this review should be published in advance and its timetable must ensure completion in time to influence the conclusions of the 2019 Spending Review.

Criminal Legal Aid Disclosure of unused material

1. We conclude that the pressure placed on defence lawyers to fulfil their professional obligations by reviewing unused prosecution material without remuneration is fundamentally unfair and—with the continual increase in the amount of such material—likely to become unsustainable, and increasingly prejudicial to the defendant. We recommend that restoring legal aid payments for reviewing unused material above a certain page threshold be considered as part of the comprehensive and independent review of criminal legal aid that we have recommended above.

The link to the full justice committee report can be found here.

All posts by Andrew Wesley/h3>

How many times have you said something like ‘I’m going to kill you’?  Most of the time this will simply be something said in the heat of the moment rather than genuine threats to kill.

If, however, you make such a threat and intend that another would fear it would be carried out then you will be committing an offence of making threats to kill.

The offence is under section 16 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. Even though the legislation is very old it is still a commonly used charge. The key part of the offence is that a person intend another to fear that the threat would be carried out.

Is there a defence to threats to kill?

 If you make the threat in self-defence or in the prevention of crime you may have a defence of lawful excuse.  Whether any threat made was reasonable in the circumstances will be a matter for the magistrates or jury.

Equally, a comment made in temper or jest, with no intent to make anyone fear it would be carried out, would not be an offence.

Evidence of previous history between the parties is admissible as tending to prove that the defendant intended his words to be taken seriously (Williams (C.I.), 84 Cr.App.R. 299, CA.)

What if the threats to kill are made to someone else?

 You do not have to make the threat directly to the person, it may be through a third party.

For example, a man in prison made threats to a prison officer that he was going to kill his ex-girlfriend, he was convicted and received five years imprisonment. The threats were taken especially seriously as he had a previous conviction for the manslaughter of his wife.

What sentence can I expect?

The offence can encompass a wide range of offending so in sentencing the court will look at a variety of factors.  These can include the following examples:

• was there a weapon?
• was it a threat in the heat of the moment?
• the impact on the victim
• repeated threats or a single calculated threat?

An example is a case involving threats to kill made to an arresting officer.  The offender knew detail about the officer’s home life which added weight to the threats.  As a result he was sentenced to 2 years imprisonment.

When a weapon is present when threats are being made the offence is much more serious.  An offender who threatened his former partner with a sword received five years imprisonment.

Sentences imposed can range from a community order for an offence that constitutes one threat made in the heat of the moment, through to imprisonment up to a maximum of 10 years for repeated threats or the presence of a weapon.

How can we help defend in a case of threats to kill?

 As you can see, making threats to kill is a serious allegations 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.

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>

Clients of Chesterfield crime solicitor Denney Lau have had a successful week before Chesterfield Magistrates’ Court.

Successful exceptional hardship argument

Denney’s client was guilty of failing to notify the details of a driver when required to do so by the police.  Unfortunately he already had ten penalty points on his driving licence.  As a result, the minimum of six penalty points that would be imposed for the new offence would make him liable for a disqualification for a minimum of six months under the totting up procedure.

To avoid this, Denney successfully argued before the Chesterfield Magistrates’ Court that his client would suffer exceptional hardship if he was to be disqualified.  Although any disqualification is likely to lead to hardship, in this case our client would not only lose his employment as a driver but also his home.  He would be unable to continue with the additional responsibilities that he had for his grandchildren.

Our client was relived that he was able to keep his driving licence although it now had sixteen penalty points upon it.

Not guilty of driving whilst disqualified

Two days later, Denney represented another client who was standing trial at Chesterfield Magistrates’ Court in relation to an allegation of driving whilst disqualified.

A police officer had intelligence suggesting that our client had been using a particular vehicle whilst disqualified and therefore without insurance.  The police saw the vehicle.  There was a pursuit and when the vehicle came to a halt three people ran away from the vehicle.

The officer claimed that he was sure that the driver of the vehicle was Denney’s client.  This was disputed at trial.

Challenging police evidence can often be difficult.  It is the case that Magistrates are often more persuaded by the evidence of an officer than by that of a defendant.  Denney conducted his own research into the credibility of the officer in question.  He found that the officer had appeared before the police disciplinary panel for misconduct recently.  That misconduct was that he had deliberately made a wrong entry onto the Police National Computer.  As a result the officer had received a warning about his conduct.

In order to have this information before the court, Denney had to make a successful bad character application.  Aside from cross-examining the officer about the disciplinary finding, Denney also asked him detailed questions about the difficult circumstances of the identification.

After considering the evidence in the case the magistrates found our client not guilty of the offences.

Denied shop theft allegation

Four days after that a different client stood trial at Chesterfield Magistrates’ Court in relation to an allegation of shop theft.  In this case a store manager claimed that he had witnessed a theft, identified our client from CCTV and then given chase before our client left the scene in a vehicle.

Our client had, unfortunately, chosen not to take advantage of our free and independent advice in police interview.  He had, however, stated that he did not recall being involved in such an incident.

In preparation for what could be a difficult trial Denney closely examined the CCTV footage.  He discovered that the offender’s face could not be seen.  As a result, this cast doubt on the identification made by the store manager.

In his closing speech, Denney argued that the Magistrates needed to examine closely the circumstances in which the identification was made.   Mistakes can be made in recognition of close relatives and friends can sometimes made be made.

Again, having heard Denney’s argument and considered the evidence the court found his client not guilty.

Seek our representation before Chesterfield Magistrates’ Court

You can ensure that you are represented by Chesterfield crime solicitor Denney Lau by phoning 01246 387999 and making an appointment to see him.  Contact him in advance of any police interview or court appearance and if he is available then he will be with you, or make arrangements for one of his experienced colleagues to attend instead.

Alternatively you can use the contact form below.

All posts by Andrew Wesley/h3>

The government has announced its intention to use new breathalysers to administer roadside breath tests.  This move could see a further 6,000 convictions per year for those who drink and drive.

Roadside breath tests followed by evidential tests

At the moment, breath test procedures are in two stages.  Those who test positive during roadside breath tests will be arrested and taken to a police station.   This is for a further test to be administered.  The second test is known as the ‘evidential test’.  It is the result of this test that forms the basis of any prosecution decision.

The gap in time between the first positive roadside breath tests and the ones administered at the police station may be significant enough to ensure that a person blows a negative reading.   This would be due to falling alcohol levels over time.  In some cases, however, the reverse can also happen.

Although the law permits ‘back calculations’ to be undertaken,  the evidence base is such that they are seldom used by the prosecution in this scenario.  As a result it has been argued that some drink drivers go free.

The legislation providing a procedure for definitive evidential roadside breath tests is already in place.  In June 2018 the government has announced a competition aimed at device manufacturers, with the aim of ensuring that suitable devices are approved and in use for roadside breath tests by 2020.

Around 460 000 breath tests are conducted each year.  Approximately 59 000 people providing a positive reading.

Approximately 6 000 people provide a positive reading at the roadside but are later found to be under the limit when tested at the police station.  This change will see those people prosecuted.

In many instances these will be people who have ‘gambled’ on a quick lunchtime drink or have not allowed quite enough time to sober up from the night before.

The changes will also reduce the scope for so-called ‘loophole defences’.  These have been made popular due to the complexities of the police station procedure. It is expected that decades of case law will become redundant once the new devices are being used.

Experience does, however, tell us that legal challenges will continue to be developed even when other avenues of law are closed to suspects and defendants.

The penalties for drink driving are severe.  There are minimum periods of disqualification.  These can be combined with high financial penalties and punishing insurance premiums for many years to come.  Prison sentences will be imposed in the most extreme cases.  As a result, many offenders face the loss of employment.

How can we assist?

Our motoring solicitors are experts in all aspects of drink and drug driving law. This is one of the most complex areas of criminal law.  Early advice should be sought to ensure that you achieve the best outcome in your case.

In some recent cases we have successfully argued a medical defence to failing to provide a specimen, argued special reasons to avoid a disqualification from driving   and conducted  a trial securing a not guilty verdict for our client facing drug driving charges.

In some case, such as this one, our clients accept that they are guilty but wish to mitigate the usual effect of a conviction, such as a disqualification.

We have expert road traffic lawyers at our six offices across the East Midlands.  Find your nearest office here.  Alternatively you can use the contact form below.