All posts by Andrew Wesley/h3>

New offences of stalking (in addition to the existing offences of harassment) were introduced by Parliament relatively recently in 2012. The offences are harassment which involves a course of conduct that amounts to stalking.

There are two offences.  These are stalking involving fear of violence and stalking involving serious alarm or distress.

What is stalking?

There is no strict definition, but the legislation lists a number of behaviours associated with stalking:

• following a person
• contacting or attempting to contact a person by any means
• publishing material relating to a person or purporting to come from them
• monitoring a person’s use of the internet, email or communications
• loitering
• interfering with any property in the possession of a person
• watching or spying on a person

The list is not exhaustive.  Nor is behaving in one of these ways automatically stalking.  Context is everything in such offences.

 What must the prosecution prove in a stalking case?

• That there is a course of conduct
• which constitutes harassment, and
• the course of conduct amounts to stalking.

Additionally, for the offence involving fear of violence it must be proven that:

• the conduct causes another to fear that violence will be used against him; and
• which the defendant knows or ought to know will cause another to fear that violence will be used against him.

The test as to whether a suspect “ought to know” these things about their conduct is whether a reasonable person in possession of the same information would think that the course of conduct would cause the other to fear violence.

It is an offence if conduct amounts to stalking and causes another to fear, on at least two occasions, that violence will be used.  Alternatively, it will be an offence if the conduct causes serious alarm or distress and this has a substantial effect on a person’s day to day activities.

This could mean that they have to, for example:

• change a route they normally use
• move home
• change the way they socialise.

It could also mean a change to a person’s physical or mental health.

Are there any defences to stalking?

It is a defence to show –

• the course of conduct was pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime
• the course of conduct was pursued under a rule of law
• that any conduct was reasonable

Additionally, for the offence alleging a fear of violence offence, it will be a defence if the course of conduct was reasonable for the protection of the defendant or another, or for the protection of their or another’s property.

What sentence could I get for stalking?

For the basic offence of stalking the maximum sentence is six months’ imprisonment.

For the offence causing fear of violence or serious alarm or distress the maximum sentence is 10 years imprisonment for an offence on or after 2 April 2017.  The maximum sentence is 5 years for offences committed prior to that date.

A restraining order to protect the victim from further contact can also be imposed.  This could be the case even where a defendant is found not guilty of the offence.

Seek early advice from an expert in criminal law

These are serious allegations.  The law is 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.

As experienced defence solicitors we know that there is always another side to the story, let us tell that for you.

The advantages of 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>

From an era before a search warrant, in Entick v Carrington (1765), a case concerning the entry to and searching of premises, the court ruled:

“…if this is law it would be found in our books, but no such law ever existed in this country; our law holds the property of every man so sacred, that no man can set his foot upon his neighbour’s close without his leave.”

Entick v Carrington is probably the earliest case law concerning the law of search and seizure.  It is a legal power since described as a ‘nuclear option’ in the court’s arsenal in the case of R (Mercury Tax Group) v HMRC [2008] EWHC 2721.  But, of course, it is certainly not the last word.  Over the last few years, there has been a substantial body of developing case law designed to ensure that this most potent state intrusion into the lives of individuals and business is exercised lawfully and proportionately.

Why does it matter?

First and foremost, core constitutional principles are at stake.

These include the power of the state to enter private property.  Very often this is done during a dawn raid and with other family members present.  As a result the powers should not be used lightly, particularly during what is normally the very early stages of a criminal investigation.

Because of this, the case of R (Mills) v Sussex Police and Southwark Crown Court [2014] EWHC 2523 (Admin) held that warrants should only be sought as a “last resort and should not be employed where other less draconian powers can achieve the relevant objective”.

The taking of documents, files, computer servers and systems can have a profound reputational impact on businesses when staff see what is happening.  They and clients lose confidence in the business. The inability to carry out ‘business as normal’ can put the survival of any business at risk and can place an unbearable burden on the individuals involved.

Can I challenge a search warrant?

The powers of search and seizure under a search warrant are spread out over a great many legislative provisions.  The key message is to take our legal advice as soon as you are aware that anything might happen or has already happened.

What is clear is that warrants are very often granted on an erroneous basis.  The applications show scant regard for the legal principles involved in the issue of the search warrant.

Drawing a warrant too widely is a frequent issue as is demonstrated in the case of R (F, J and K) v Blackfriars Crown Court and Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2014] EWHC 1541 (Admin).

While warrants are issued via a judicial process, the Judge will only be able to rely on what is disclosed by the investigator in private.

Police officers are duty bound to provide the court with full and frank disclosure, highlighting any material which is potentially adverse to the application. This includes a duty not to mislead the judge in any material way. The judge must then apply a rigorous critical analysis to the application so that they can be satisfied that the evidence provided justifies the grant of the warrant and give reasons for their decision.

In Redknapp v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2008] EWHC 1177 (Admin) the court ruled:

“The obtaining of a search warrant is never to be treated as a formality. It authorises the invasion of a person’s home. All the material necessary to justify the grant of a warrant should be contained in the information provided on the form. If the magistrate or Judge in the case of an application under s.9, does require any further information in order to satisfy himself that the warrant is justified, a note should be made of the additional information so that there is a proper record of the full basis upon which the warrant has been granted.”

There are various avenues of legal redress available, including judicial review. Early intervention may result in the return of documents and property, and in some instances, a claim for damages might be possible.

How we can assist

Please contact us if you know that your premises are about to be searched or have been.  Keep any paperwork that you are given.  We will be able to give you expert legal advice on the legality of the search including the issue of the search warrant.

You can find your most convenient office here.

Alternatively please use the contact form below.

All posts by Andrew Wesley/h3>

Nottingham criminal duty solicitor Jameel Malik represented a client before Nottingham Magistrates’ Court who faced trial for failing to provide a specimen of breath for analysis.

Our client’s vehicle found abandoned

Police officers had found an empty vehicle in a ditch.  They had carried out investigations and discovered who the vehicle belonged to.  The vehicle was owned by Jameel’s client so the police visited his address to speak to him.

The door had been opened by our client who was asked to provide a breath test, the officers having reasonable cause to believe that he had been driving whilst under the influence of alcohol.  Jameel’s client refused.  He stated that this was because he had a medical condition that prevented him providing a sample.

Because of this, the officer made further enquiries and asked our client to make further disclosure of his symptoms.  The police officer was provided with excuses that included poor mental health and depresssion.  He had suffered a broken neck in the past and had something lodged in his throat.

Our client admitted that the vehicle was his, he had driven into the ditch and could not get out, and having walked home had then drunk a large amount of red wine.

The officer continued to warn the suspect that if he failed to provide a specimen of breath for analysis then he would have no choice but to arrest him for failing to provide a specimen for analysis.  Eventually, the office’s patience ran out and our client was arrested and taken to Newark police station.

Medical reasons given at the police station

Unsurprisingly, at the police station, our client was requested to provide a specimen of breath on the machine at the police station.  Again, our client provided a list of reasons why he could not when asked whether he had medical reasons.  He talked of breathlessness, severe panic attacks and anxiety, as well as other medical conditions.

Jameel’s client made two attempts to provide a specimen of bread for analysis.  On both occasions they registered as a fail because he had not blown hard enough.  The officer believed that the failure to provide had been deliberate.  Our client was also seen by a medic while in custody who offered the opinion that there was no medical reason for failing to provide a specimen.

Finally, having been charged with failing to provide a specimen at the police station, our client was asked to provide a specimen to check that he was under the limit to drive.  He successfully did so, into a handheld device.

Client account supported by medical evidence

The issue for trial was whether our client had a reasonable excuse for failing to provide a specimen for analysis in the police station.

During the trial, the Magistrates heard evidence from the officer who carried out procedure at the police station.  Jameel questioned him as to why he had not given his client the opportunity to provide blood or urine as an alternative to breath.  Footage from a body worn camera was available, as was CCTV from the custody suite.

Jameel’s client then gave evidence as to his reasons for not providing.  A psychiatrist also provided evidence about his mental state.  He had, in fact, been suffering from anxiety all his life.  When placed in the situation he had been in at the police station and asked to provide a sample of breath his anxiety levels increased, with his mental state influencing his ability to provide a specimen of breath.

Not guilty of failing to provide a specimen

After hearing all of the evidence and Jameel’s address to the court, the Magistrates were persuaded by the evidence and his argument.  Jameel’s client was found not guilty of failing to provide a specimen.

Contact a motoring law solicitor

If you face an allegation of failing to provide a specimen for analysis, or any other road traffic offence, you will want to instruct a specialist.  Jameel can be contacted at our Nottingham office on 0115 9599550.  We have experts at all of our other offices as well.

Contact details for all of our offices can be found here.

Alternatively you can use the contact form below.

All posts by Andrew Wesley/h3>

Newly qualified regulatory solicitor Elliott Moulster, based at our Ilkeston office spent a period pre-qualification on secondment to Nottingham Law Centre.

You can read more about his placement here and here.

Elliott was certainly kept busy during the final two weeks of his placement.  During his time there he had become a valued member of the Law Centre’s Welfare Benefits Department.

He continued to progress a significant number of welfare benefits cases.  Elliott was now in a position to provide advice to many vulnerable clients who required assistance.  There were plenty of calls to be made and letters to be written to the DWP,  This was combined with his attendance and assistance at community events.

Housing Law Duty Scheme

In addition to continuing with the valuable welfare benefits work, Elliott also had the opportunity to experience some housing law.  He attended Nottingham County Court with one of the housing solicitors, Anne Downey who was undertaking work under the Housing Duty solicitor scheme.  Elliott was impressed how, much like a criminal duty solicitor,  Anne was able to provide detailed and accurate advice in a very short period of time.

Since Elliott was given the above opportunity, he also spent a great deal of time familiarising myself with various aspects of housing law. This included

• court procedure
• the eviction process, and
• possible defences to eviction.

Elliott’s most memorable piece of work happened on his very last day at Nottingham Law Centre. The Housing Department had a case in which they had to prove a defendant’s right to reside in the UK. Elliott drafted submissions to the court as to the individual’s right to reside.

This work followed similar submissions that Elliott had made on the topic to the Social Security Upper Appeal Tribunal.  In that case his representations had been approved and appreciated by the judge due to them being accurate but concise. Although the nature of the work is such that instructions are received at the last minute, he was able to prepare and deliver the submissions in the nick of time.

A big thank you to Nottingham Law Centre

In conclusion, Elliott had spent a fantastic time at Nottingham Law Centre.  The spell complimented the training in criminal law that he had received in our regulatory and criminal law departments.   He learnt a great deal and developed a number of transferable skills.

Elliott has no have no doubt that this experience will benefit him as he begins his life as a solicitor. The partners of VHS Fletchers are very grateful to supervising solicitor Sally Denton and all at the Law Centre for making the experience so rewarding.  Particular thanks must go to Diana Bagci who was a wonderful supervisor.

Although Elliott’s time at the Nottingham Law Centre is over, this won’t be goodbye.  Elliott is already a team member for the Nottingham Legal Walk on 10 May.

Read more about that and give generously here.

All posts by Andrew Wesley/h3>

VHS Fletchers are pleased to sponsor Nottingham runner Naomi McArthur.  Naomi is to run her first full Marathon this year in London on 22 April to benefit the Help a Child Appeal.

In relation to the marathon itself, Naomi describes herself as:

 “excited and terrified in equal measure!”

National Justice Museum’s Help a Child Appeal

Her chosen charity is The National Justice Museum’s Help a Child Appeal.  This aims to help children to stay away from crime and understand and engage with their rights while living up to their responsibilities.

Naomi has described her motivation for completing the marathon for the charity:

“As a mum of three, living in the City of Nottingham, I wanted to support a charity which educates local children about the law, and encourages them to become law abiding citizens, and make positive decisions for their futures.” 

The money raised helps the charity to provide educational activities for children, who might not otherwise have the opportunity to visit the museum.

How will the donations be spent?

The funded activities will help broaden the horizons of the children who take part in the program.  They encourage self-motivation, self-confidence and engagement. Young people who attend will be able to develop a range of essential skills.

These include critical thinking, debate, presentation, research and analytical skills, as well as speaking, listening and communication skills.

Any donations can help children feel empowered to:

• Learn about the law
• Stay away from crime
• Make positive decisions
• Be more tolerant of others
• Develop aspirations for their future

In 2015/16 over 22 000 young people took part in one of the charity’s educational activities. With continued help, the charity aims to continue to reach out and provide opportunities for even more. Any donations made will have a direct impact on the children and young people that the charity works with.

Update

On Friday 23 February Naomi held a fund raiser at Suede Bar in Nottingham.

This was a great success, with a total of 115 tickets sold.  600 raffle tickets were also sold for a great array of prizes donated by individuals and local business.  After expenses an impressive total of

£1600

was raised for the charity.

Naomi had recovered sufficiently by the Sunday to take on a 16 mile run, enjoying the sunshine before the Beast from the East hit.

On Tuesday Naomi didn’t let the snow keep her indoors, and we have photographic evidence to prove it.

Unfortunately, Thursday‘s planned 18 mile run was frustrated by too much snow as the Beast from the East struck and schools were closed.  Instead Naomi took to the exercise bike.

We’ll post further updates when we have them.  Click on the links below to show your support (moral and financial).

Update 2 – 16 March 2018

Since we last updated you on Naomi’s progress towards the London Marathon she has undertaken a 16 mile run from East Midlands airport to Nottingham Castle.  Here she is contemplating a flight out of the country rather than doing the run.

158 people took part in the run.  The cause on this occasion was to raise money for the UK Bowel Cancer charity.

Here is Naomi at the finish.  With five weeks to go, she has an 18 mile run planned for tonight.

Naomi has also been asking people to guess her finish time with the incentive of a cash prize, with time ranging from 3:42:10 to ‘did not finish’.  It’s £1 a guess, and she’ll ask you when she sees you.

Update number three – 3 April

Naomi enjoyed her longest run ever in the sunshine on Sunday 25 March.  This was 22 miles along the Grantham Canal.  She was dropped off in Harby and left to run home!

Another 20 miles just 4 days later was tough going on her legs, so Naomi is very happy that it’s now time to taper off.  She is slightly disappointed that the taper is not a little more drastic as there is still over 100 miles to run, with two more long runs of 15 and 10 miles respectively as the date of 22 April approaches.

Update number 4 – 17 April

That’s it now, Naomi has completed her training.  The t-shirt has been printed.   Only five more sleeps to go.  Despite popping echinacea supplement and bingeing on oranges, “maranoia” has well and truly taken hold!

Naomi questions whether she will manage the last 4 miles that she hasn’t covered in training? Will her bad knee finally give way? Will she melt in the blistering heat of the hottest London Marathon in fifteen years?

423 miles have been run since January of this year, taking up 66 hours of her time.  Over £1700 has been raised so far for the for The National Justice Museum’s Help a Child Campaign.

Despite this, she remains as terrified as she was three months ago!

PS – Update 5 – 19 April

Naomi after 3 miles in the blazing sunshine this evening.  3 MILES in the EVENING!!! She’s wondering whether it’s too late to defer….

Follow the link to give to make this all worth while!

Update 6 – the day after

Despite it being her first marathon, and it being the hottest London Marathon on record, Naomi completed the race in an impressive 4 hours and 56 minutes.

We have asked Naomi for her comments on the day and she offers:

‘It was TOUGH! The hottest London Marathon on record (would you believe it after all that training in the snow, ice and rain?) and the heat really got to me. I felt unwell really early on, with nausea and dizziness from miles 5 and 6.

It was a mental battle of over 4 hours to reach the finish line from there! All ideas of achieving my dream time went out of the window and it just became a case of ploughing on until the finish line.

It was so HOT that I questioned whether or not I’d even make it to the finish line at all, but thanks to my running buddy and a great support team I did!  

I’m feeling proud but broken today, and very happy to have raised nearly £2000 for a great cause.’

Although Naomi has vowed ‘never again’ as she stumbled across the finish line, she is left wondering what she might be capable of in better conditions.

Its not too late to donate.  Follow the links below.

You can look back at Naomi’s progress towards the Marathon and her fundraising drive on her Facebook page here.

The link to make a donation can be found here.