All posts by Andrew Wesley/h3>

There is a specific offence of dangerous driving, which carries a maximum prison sentence of 2 years.  If that driving is a cause of someone’s death, that maximum sentence unsurprisingly increases to one of 14 years.  A more recent offence of causing serious injury by dangerous driving was created in 2012 and carries a maximum sentence of 5 years in prison.

In each case there are minimum disqualification periods and very lengthy actual disqualifications which involve the passing of a mandatory re-test before a driver can return to the road.  Insurance premiums which will remain significant for many years to come, with some drivers unable to secure insurance at all, at any price.

What is dangerous driving?

Dangerous driving is defined by section 2A Road Traffic Act 1988:

“…a person is to be regarded as driving dangerously if (and, subject to subsection (2) below, only if)—

(a) the way he drives falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver, and

(b) it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous.”

There is also a further element of dangerous driving related to unsafe vehicles, although this is not within the scope of this article.

The test is an ‘objective one’ which means that it is not to be judged through the eyes of the actual driver but the eyes of a ‘competent and careful driver’.  As a result it, in any trial, it will be for a magistrate, District Judge or jury to decide on guilt.

The crucial part of the test is that the driving falls ‘far below’ the standard expected.  It is this aspect of the offence that, on occasion, makes advising in these cases such a highly skilled task.

In some cases it will be immediately obvious that the driving falls ‘far below’ the standard of a competent and careful driver.  For example, if a person is driving at 100 mph on the wrong carriageway of the motorway at night without lights, then there is no room for debate.

But some case are more difficult.  What if, believing that you have sufficient sight of the road ahead, you overtake only to hit an oncoming vehicle in the opposite lane. Would that fall into the category of driving ‘far below’ the standard, or it is simply an unfortunate error of judgement, and one that could perhaps be properly categorised as careless rather than dangerous driving?

No statutory definition exists of driving falling ‘far below’

There is no statutory definition of what is meant by ‘far below.’  Section 2A(3) of the 1988 Act states that “dangerous” must refer to the danger of personal injury or serious damage to property.

Case law also makes it clear that the driver’s particular skill or lack of is not relevant as set out in Bannister [2009] EWCA Crim 1571.

A full exploration of the circumstances of the alleged offence will be required in borderline cases.  The Crown Prosecution Service regards the following as being examples of dangerous driving:

• racing or competitive driving;
• failing to have proper and safe regard for vulnerable road users such as cyclists, motorcyclists, horse riders, the elderly and pedestrians or when in the vicinity of a pedestrian crossing, hospital, school or residential home;
• speed, which is particularly inappropriate for the prevailing road or traffic conditions;
• aggressive driving, such as sudden lane changes, cutting into a line of vehicles or driving much too close to the vehicle in front;
• disregard of traffic lights and other road signs, which, on an objective analysis, would appear to be deliberate;
• disregard of warnings from fellow passengers;
• overtaking which could not have been carried out safely;
• driving when knowingly suffering from a medical or physical condition that significantly and dangerously impairs the offender’s driving skills such as having an arm or leg in plaster, or impaired eyesight. It can include the failure to take prescribed medication;
• driving when knowingly deprived of adequate sleep or rest;
• driving a vehicle knowing it has a dangerous defect or is poorly maintained or is dangerously loaded;
• using a hand-held mobile phone or other hand-held electronic equipment whether as a phone or to compose or read text messages when the driver was avoidably and dangerously distracted by that use (R v Browning (2001) EWCA Crim 1831, R v Payne [2007] EWCA Crim 157);
• driving whilst avoidably and dangerously distracted such as whilst reading a newspaper/map, talking to and looking at a passenger, selecting and lighting a cigarette or by adjusting the controls of electronic equipment such as a radio, hands-free mobile phone or satellite navigation equipment;
• a brief but obvious danger arising from a seriously dangerous manoeuvre. This covers situations where a driver has made a mistake or an error of judgement that was so substantial that it caused the driving to be dangerous even for only a short time. Cases that illustrate this principle include where an offender failed to stop at a junction where there was a give way sign, failing to see a taxi that was being driven across the junction perfectly properly and colliding with it; offender unintentionally pressed the accelerator instead of the brake; offender drove across a junction marked by a give way sign and collided with a car that was being driven along the major road and had no explanation for his failure to see the other car.

It should be stressed, however, that ultimately it will be a matter for the court to decide.

Cases of dangerous driving less than clear cut

Some of the examples in the above list may seem surprising, for example where a person unintentionally pressed the accelerator instead of the brake.  It is worth repeating that much will depend on what actually happened.  Argument may well be possible around concepts such as ‘…even for only a short time…’ 

Similarly, argument can be raised about when a breach of a legal duty in ‘…failing to have proper and safe regard…’ strays over the line from being careless driving to an incident of dangerous driving?

A lawyer will need to try and dilute the very real risk of judging everything from the perspective of hindsight and the outcome of the driving.

Legal strategies to defend dangerous driving cases

In stressful situations, particularly where serious harm has been caused, there is an instinctive reaction to think that the driving error must also have been very serious.

Standing back, as lawyers, we know that the truth is that on occasion even the slightest error can result in very serious consequences. It is therefore vital that if you are to be interviewed by the police following an accident that you secure legal representation at the outset.

All of our legal advice and assistance at a police station or any other place will be free of charge to you as a suspect regardless of your financial means.  You can read more about the help we can give here.  The scheme also operates if you are not under arrest but being spoken to on a voluntary basis.  This does not mean that the police are treating the allegation any less seriously and more information can be found here.

Accident investigation and reconstruction is now an important consideration in many cases.  This allows scientists and engineers to see exactly the cause(s) of an accident and the magnitude of error, often exposing the culpability of others.  Such reports can be expensive, but help will be available if you are eligible for either Magistrates or Crown Court legal aid.

Eye-witness testimony is not always reliable and is also often tainted by the result of the driving as opposed to the driving itself.  This will need to be exposed through expert cross examination of the witnesses in court.

In some cases there may still be some room for manoeuvre and a plea to the lesser offence of careless driving may be appropriate.

How we can assist you if you face dangerous driving allegations

Whether an act of driving amounts to dangerous driving is often not easy to ascertain.  Our experienced lawyers routinely deal with all manner of driving cases, from the minor to the most serious.

Whether facing imprisonment or not, the loss of a driving licence is for many people an incredibly serious penalty in itself.  We will take all steps possible on your behalf to avoid that happening.

We have six offices across the East Midlands and provide advice and provide nationwide advice and representation.  Find your nearest office here.  Alternatively use the contact form below.

All posts by Andrew Wesley/h3>

On 26 March 2018 the Charter for Justice was launched by the London Criminal Courts Solicitors’ Association (LCCSA) together with the Criminal Bar Association (CBA) and Criminal Law Solicitors Association (CLSA).

In combination with other initiatives such as the one that can be read about here,  the aim is to set out clearly the key principles needed to ensure a fair and properly functioning Justice system.

The Charter was produced following engagement with the CBA, CLSA and the Howard League for Penal Reform.  It is hoped that the Charter become a living, changing entity like the law itself, and is influenced by those who care about justice.

The launch took place at the Law Society on 26th March.  A panel of speakers, chaired by Greg Foxmith, addressed those attending on a number of issues.

• CBA chair Angela Rafferty QC spoke on funding issues and access to justice
• Laura Jane from the Howard League addressed the prison and probation crisis.
• Raj Chada talked tackling discrimination and prejudice at the police stations and in court.
• Jerry Hayes addressed ongoing issues with disclosure.
• Penelope Gibbs from Transform Justice discussed ideas of Open Justice.

The contents of the Charter for Justice are set out below:

Charter for Justice

Preamble

For too many years those who are close to the criminal justice system have observed the impact of funding restraints and cuts which have led to dilapidated buildings, reduced access to Justice, and a prison service on the point of collapse. The Lammy report has highlighted inequality of outcomes, and recently highlighted disclosure problems have shown systemic failures in the system.

This charter seeks to set the standards for a justice system that is sustainable, workable and fair.

1. Equal Access to Justice

Publicly funded representation is essential for defence and prosecution.

The CPS needs to be properly funded to properly present cases, and legal aid sufficiently available and remunerated to ensure equality of arms in an adversarial justice system, and to allow everyone access to legal advice and representation irrespective of mean

2. Disclosure

There should be full and fair disclosure of the Prosecution case to a suspect at the police station and defendant at court. Criminal justice is not a game, and proper disclosure needs to be made in a timely fashion so that those accused by the state can fully understand what they are accused of, and respond accordingly.

Failures in the disclosure process waste huge resources throughout the system and result in wrongful convictions, avoidable appeals and abandoned trials, damaging both the accused and victims of crime and undermining public confidence.

There is an urgent need to increase fairness, effectiveness and accountability within the disclosure process.

3. Open Justice

There should be no further court closures, and court buildings and their fabric should be maintained to an acceptable standard. The latest initiative of online pleas is a dangerous development that will remove the direct engagement that a defendant has with the court and legal representatives.

Every defendant or witness or member of the public should have a right to attend a court hearing in person.

The recent change to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act allowing the police to video-interview people wherever they choose without legal advice undermines vital protections for those suspected of crime and should be prohibited. This is especially dangerous for the young, those with mental health issues or learning disabilities, or for whom English is not a first language.

4. A humane and effective prison and probation service

Urgent action is required to upgrade and maintain the quality of prison buildings and facilities. There are too many people in prison and at risk of being sent to prison for failing to comply with conditions and urgent action is required to reduce the number of people in prison.

We must learn from other countries where prisons are more forward thinking and humane and re-offending rates are lower. There must be recruitment and retention of sufficient prison officers, and access to properly funded rehabilitation and education courses within the prison system.

The part privatisation of the probation service is a costly failure which should be reversed.

5. A Fair Justice system

Urgent action is needed to achieve equality of justice and eradicate the discrimination identified in the Lammy Report. Unless all have faith in the processes as well as the outcomes of our justice system, trust in the system will ebb away.

We need to work to eliminate unconscious bias amongst all those involved in the system through diverse recruitment, better training and rigorous monitoring.

Justice cannot be seen to be done when there are the clear differences in treatment and outcome identified in the Lammy Report, or arising through use of the legal concept of joint enterprise.

The LCCSA website can be found here so that you can follow developments of the Charter for Justice.

All posts by Andrew Wesley/h3>

Chesterfield Motoring Solicitor David Gittins was recently instructed in a case where his client was at real risk of a driving ban.  This would have meant the loss of his job as a taxi driver and a substantial impact on his 4 children.

David’s client had been caught driving at 76 mph in an 30 mph speed limit close to Chesterfield Town Centre. David’s strong advocacy  and diligent preparation enabled the client to keep his driving licence.  Instead he left the court with a fine and penalty points.

This case, perhaps better than most, demonstrates the benefits of choosing a local Chesterfield motoring solicitor carefully.  Surprisingly, David’s client had tried to instruct another local solicitor’s firm.  They had declined to take the instruction as they didn’t believe he could save the Defendant’s driving license.

Benefits of a local Chesterfield motoring solicitor

David’s client told him that he had been caught speeding whilst driving out of Chesterfield town centre along Derby Road at excessive speeds.  With local knowledge, David was immediately able to recognise the seriousness of the situation.

David’s client had been running late and had made a terrible error in trying to make up time by grossly exceeding the speed limit.  His client did not dispute the speed.  He indicated to David his desire to plead guilty at the very first opportunity in order to gain maximum credit and demonstrate his remorse.  In retrospect he appreciated the potential danger he created with this piece of driving.

Our client required his driving licence to be able to work.  David had to make his client aware that due to the level of speed the Court would consider imposing an immediate driving disqualification  of up to 56 days.

As a Chesterfield motoring solicitor, David knew that the local Magistrates would also know the road in question.  Because of this he knew that the only way in which he could keep his client’s license was to prepare detailed mitigation to present to the Court.

David had two lengthy conferences with his client in advance of the Court hearing.  This was to take details of how a disqualification would impact upon him, his wife and their four children.  For example, he provided transport to a separate school for each child, as well as to a variety of after school activities. Bluntly put,  if the client lost his license it was almost impossible for the children to attend school on time due to their age and the travel involved.

David preparing a map to show the court the acute difficulties that his client’s children would face.  He also secured references on behalf of his client.  For example, his client was involved in the local community tackling drug addiction.

Penalty Points rather than a driving ban

As a result of this detailed preparation and strong advocacy, David was able to present his client’s mitigation in an extremely effective way.  Because of this, the Magistrates’ were persuaded to take a lenient approach.  David’s client received a fine and penalty points but no driving ban.  This meant that he was able to keep his employment and was understandably delighted with the outcome.

Contact a Chesterfield Motoring Solicitor

If you require the advice and representation of an expert motoring solicitor then please contact David at our Chesterfield office on 01246 283000 or use the contact form below.  Details of our Chesterfield office can be found here.

David  can provide you with detailed and affordable advice as to whether you are able to challenge the prosecution evidence relating to your road traffic offence, or how you are likely to be sentenced following a guilty plea.

All posts by Andrew Wesley/h3>

 

Chesterfield crime solicitor Denney Lau has had another busy week,combining police station representation, Magistrates’ court cases and office appointments.

You can read more about this below.

Monday

Negotiated basis of plea

Denney’s first client of his working week was a person who had been arrested on a warrant that had been outstanding since November 2016 and was before Chesterfield Magistrates’ Court.  Although he accepted being guilty of an offence of assault, he did not accept the full extent of the allegation.  Denney was able to negotiate a basis of plea that was acceptable to the prosecution and the court.  He pleaded guilty and received a financial penalty.

Legal aid was granted which meant that our representation was free of charge to our client.

Trial prepared but no client

Later that day, Denney was to represent another legally-aided client who faced trial for theft from a dwelling.  The witness was to give evidence over a live link from Oxford.  The trial was fully prepared, but in the our client didn’t attend and the trial could not go ahead.

Tuesday

Client released under investigation

On Tuesday morning a client sought our independent legal advice in police interview.  The allegation was one of commercial burglary from the summer of 2017.  He had been detained at chesterfield police station allegation of non dwelling burglary.  Following advice, our client put forward an account denying responsibility for the offence.

Representations were made that our client should not be detained while a decision from the Crown Prosecution Service was sought.  Instead, he should be released under investigation so that the final decision can be communicated at a later date.

Criminal legal aid meant that this advice and representation was free of charge.

Suspended rather than immediate custody

Again with the benefit of criminal legal aid, Chesterfield crime solicitor Denney Lau represented a client who had breached his community order on two separate occasions.  To make matters worse, he had been unlawfully at large on a warrant without bail since September 2017.

The District Judge gave an immediate indication that he had no alternative but to send our client to prison immediately.  Having heard mitigation from Denney, instead he felt able to impose a suspended sentence leading to our client’s immediate release.

A night on call at Chesterfield police station

Lack of evidence on theft

Denney’s first client of the evening was a person who had been arrested for an allegation of theft.  A lack of evidence meant that our client chose not to answer police questions.  His continued detention was authorised to permit consideration of identification procedures and to see whether any further evidence was to be provided.

Representations secure bail from police

His second client had been arrested for driving whilst disqualified but denied that allegation after receiving free and independent legal advice.  He was already being investigated for an identical offence.

Denney’s client was charged with both sets of offences.  The officer made representation to the custody sergeant that, bearing in mind the repeat allegations, our client should be detained for a remand application in the morning.

After hearing representations from Denney, the sergeant was persuaded to bail his client to court instead.

Wednesday

Chesterfield police station part two

Denney returned to Chesterfield police station to continue to represent the person detained for theft the night before.  There was a co-accused by now, although the co-accused was represented by a different firm of solicitor.

Our client was charged with several allegations of theft, as was his co-accused.  Denny was successful in persuading the police to grant his client bail, although the solicitor for the co-accused was less successful.  He was placed before the court for a remand application.

Favourable sentence in client’s absence

A client was due to be sentenced over the video link but refused to appear for the hearing.  The court decided to proceed in the client’s absence.  Denney continued to act in the best interests of his client.  This involved placing relevant mitigation before the court.  In the event, Denney secured a short custodial sentence that was almost equivalent to time already spent on remand, thus securing his client’s release within a further day or so.

Thursday

Birthday celebration, so no court, no police stations and no clients.

Go-karting instead.

Friday

Successful bail application by Chesterfield crime solicitor

A client had been placed before the court for an application to remand him into custody after he was charged with being in breach of a dispersal notice.  There were several issues surrounding the lawfulness of the notice so he was advised to plead not guilty.  Bail was secured even though our client had no fixed address and a conviction would place him in breach of a suspended sentence.

Another client no-show

Denney had prepared a trial to be heard before Nottingham Magistrates’ Court although he required further information from his client.  His client failed to attend and the court allowed the prosecution to proceed in his absence.  Denney was not fully instructed so withdrew from the case.

Interviewed without a solicitor

A client had made an appointment to see Chesterfield crime solicitor Denney to discuss their case.  They had chosen to be interviewed without the benefit of free and independent legal advice and wanted to talk about the evidence and the procedure following a release under investigation.

Contact a Chesterfield criminal law specialist

We gain our experience and enhance our reputation for being experts in the field of criminal law by representing clients in relation to a full range of offences on a daily basis,

If you want to instruct Chesterfield crime solicitor Denney Lau in a case then the details of our new office in Chesterfield can be found here.  Alternatively you can use the contact form below.

All posts by Andrew Wesley/h3>

On Thursday 22 March 2018 a chapter ends as Chesterfield solicitors VHS Fletchers move from Marsden Chambers in to new offices across town at 5 Beetwell.

Chesterfield solicitors have provided representation in criminal cases from that office for many many years.  Prior to VHS Fletchers beginning to practice from that address, Banner Jones solicitors provided criminal advice and representation.

Perhaps two of the most immediately recognisable names to have praticed from Marsden Chambers are Chesterfield solicitors Robert Banner and Peter Jones.  Robert specialised in criminal representation for 12 years beginning in 1976 before moving into the field of employment law.  Peter qualified in 1980, and now specialises in family law, having built a successful criminal practice over a number of years.  He continued to represent clients in the criminal field until VHS Fletchers began to provide criminal advice.

Jonathan Taaffe trained as a solicitor at Banner Jones, working from the Marsden Sreet office from 1983. He resigned from the partnership in 2010 and is now a full time District Judge sitting in Derbyshire.

In 2007, newly qualified solicitor Denney Lau joined the Marsden Street office.  He worked there for a little over three years before leaving to join a competitor.  He returned to the building where his career started in 2017, but now for VHS Fletchers.  He was reunited with old colleagues Kevin Tomlinson, Ruth Campbell and Rob Lowe, as well as the text book on representing suspects in the police station that he used to obtain his police station accreditation.

In 2009, Chesterfield crime solicitor Kevin Tomlinson joined the offices at Marsden Chambers.  He had been a partner at Kieran Clarke Green solicitors for a number of years.  That firm had decided to give up their criminal contract with the Legal Aid Agency, so Kevin was able to bring his significant following of criminal clients to a new firm.

Similarly, in 2010, Banner Jones recruited local sole practitioner Bob Bashforth who had operated as a sole practitioner in Chesterfield for 12 years before joining the firm. He retired in 2016 after continuing for a short period with VHS Fletchers.  Bob now lives in Devon.

In April 2015, VHS Fletchers took over the Banner Jones criminal department and continued to operate from Marsden Chambers.  This was in a direct response to government plans to consolidate the

market.  These plans, including a flawed tender process, later collapsed but VHS Fletchers have continued to develop the department and are now a well known name in the area.

Since then, in 2016, we have successfully recruited crime solicitor Ben Strelley.  Although working in Sheffield before his move, he lives locally, and has brought an expertise in all areas of criminal law to the firm as well as a desire to achieve the best for all of his clients.

Of the current line-up, accredited police station representative Rob Lowe is the longest serving employee based at the Marsden Street office.  He began work for Banner Jones in 1999.  He was soon joined by Crown Court Litigator Ruth Campbell.

Chesterfield crime solicitor and partner David Gittins and criminal solicitor Gavin Haigh complete the team providing specialist legal advice to those arrested and detained at Chesterfield police station, Chesterfield Magistrates’ Court or Derby Crown Court, as well as places much further afield.

Contact Chesterfield solicitors specialising in crime

Our new address and phone number can be found here from 21 March 2018.  Alternatively you can use the contact form below.

VHS Fletchers has a contract with the Legal Aid Agency.  This means that any advice and representation that we provide in the police station will be free of charge to you.

We will always advise you as to your entitlement to legal aid to ensure that representation before either the Magistrates’ or Crown Courts is affordable to you.