All posts by Andrew Wesley/h3>

There has been a lot of press coverage following reports before Christmas that the Court of Appeal had freed a woman prisoner due to her being pregnant.  The issue is regularly in the news, as shown by this story from 2022.  Some uncharitably view pregnancy as a potential ‘get out of jail free’ card.

The lady had previously received a mandatory five-year minimum term for a firearms offence, so the revelation that the sentence was reduced to two years imprisonment and suspended sparked some surprise.

As with all stories like this, it is wise to refrain from commenting before the full facts are disclosed, and following the release of the appeal judgment, it is now known, perhaps not surprisingly, that this is a somewhat exceptional case.

Unknown to anyone at the original sentencing hearing, including the appellant herself, she was then pregnant. The fresh evidence showed that the appellant learned of her pregnancy only when she underwent routine testing upon her admission to HMP Bronzefield after she had been sentenced. Her pregnancy was therefore a fact existing at the time of the sentencing hearing, and one which would undoubtedly have been an important factor in the recorder’s decision if it had then been known.

That factor in itself is somewhat unremarkable, and it is important to note that there were particular circumstances relating to this lady that the Court of Appeal focussed on.

Pregnancy as mitigation

The individual circumstances of this pregnancy included:

1. A family history of premature labour suggesting familial predisposition and therefore enhanced risk for the appellant, and repeated episodes of antepartum bleeding of unknown origin (‘ABUO’) during this pregnancy. ABUO episodes are clinically significant indicators of heightened likelihoods of serious complications including miscarriage, premature birth, low birth weight, placental abruption, foetal distress and hyperbilirubinemia.
2. Incarceration therefore created for the appellant a real and present danger to safe delivery and proper neonatal development for her baby.
3. A personal history of a very traumatic previous pregnancy loss, the detail of which it is unnecessary to set out here, and other previous trauma including domestic abuse, as well as a history of anxiety and depression intensifying the appellant’s vulnerability to mental health deterioration under the stress of pregnancy, labour and neonatal care in a prison setting.
4. Incarceration whilst pregnant for this appellant, therefore, has been and would be frightening, disorientating and traumatic in a way that was far beyond any unavoidable norm.
5. The recent development of pre-eclampsia, a condition which was diagnosed in the days before the hearing and which requires a level of monitoring and a reliable means of rapid specialist intervention that present particular challenges in the prison setting, which has added to the appellant’s fears for her own health and for her unborn child.

There was strong personal mitigation in this case apart from the various ways, not limited to its particular, much heightened health risks, why this pregnancy made imprisonment an unusually onerous punishment for this appellant.

The Court concluded:

“…we are satisfied that when the appellant’s pregnancy and its specific attendant consequences and risks, for the appellant and her unborn baby, are added to the other personal mitigation available to the appellant, there are exceptional circumstances relating to the appellant and her particular offence that, taken together, render it unjust to impose a custodial term of at least 5 years. The experience of custody was going to be, and has proved, traumatic and dangerous for this appellant beyond any kind of norm. By the date of the appeal hearing, she had in fact served the equivalent of a 14-month sentence, but the weight of punishment that has constituted for her will have been qualitatively equivalent to a much stiffer sentence. There are impeccable prospects of rehabilitation, and the interests of the appellant’s unborn child are a weighty factor if, as we have concluded, a sufficient custodial term, unconstrained by the statutory minimum, would be 2 years or shorter.

In all those circumstances, and on balance, we concluded that it was in the interests of justice to take the very exceptional course, for an offence of possessing the weapon involved in this case, of suspending the appellant’s sentence.”

It can be seen from the factual analysis of this case that pregnancy does not mean immunity from a custodial sentence. However, in all cases, pregnancy as mitigation will be an influential factor to be taken into account, which is why, in all such cases, our experienced lawyers are equipped to present a compelling case to any sentencing court.

Contact an expert criminal lawyer

Part of our preparation for sentence will be to discuss with you what information can be out before the court to mitigate sentence or secure a non-custodial sentence.  Pregnancy as mitigation is perhaps unusual but will of course be an important factor in any case.

We have criminal lawyers based in Chesterfield, Mansfield, Nottingham, Derby and Newark.  The contact details are here.

Alternatively you can use the contact form below.

All posts by Andrew Wesley/h3>

On 28th October 2023 provisions in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 came into effect, enacting changes to the laws in relation to the rehabilitation of offenders.

These amendments extend the scope of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act as it applies to England and Wales so that certain custodial sentences of over four years currently excluded from rehabilitation may become spent, unless imposed in respect of certain offences.

It also amends the times at which different sentences may become spent and makes provision on the face of the Act for the rehabilitation periods that apply to certain orders on conviction.

The government states that over 120,000 former offenders will find it easier to get work and turn their lives away from crime following this change in the law.

Key Changes

Custodial sentences of four years or more years for less serious crimes become ‘spent’ after a seven-year period of rehabilitation, as long as no further offence is committed.

Some of the more serious sexual, violent, and terrorist offences are excluded from these changes.

The new rehabilitation periods are as follows:

*excluding serious sexual, violent, or terrorist offences, that continue to never be spent

Previous rehabilitation periods were:

The actual detail of these changes can be quite complex, so do not hesitate to contact us to discuss the direct implications of these changes on your own circumstances.

How can we help?

 We will provide advice on the effect of any sentence.  This will be done at the conclusion of proceedings.  If you need further advice then please contact your nearest office.  Our experienced criminal solicitors will be happy to help.

Alternatively use the contact form below.

All posts by Andrew Wesley/h3>

The Single Justice Procedure (“SJP”) is designed to enable magistrates’ courts to deal with minor offences more efficiently, while still ensuring rigorous, open and fair justice. Whether those aims are in fact met is the subject of some intense debate, with a number of high-profile journalists consistently exposing weaknesses in the system.

535,000 cases were heard by magistrates via the Single Justice Procedure in 2020.

Problems have been raised with the transparency of the procedure and the unfairness of some of the outcomes have been highlighted.

How does it work?

SJP was introduced by the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015. It allows prosecutors – who decide whether a case should be taken through the procedure – to deal with cases involving adult defendants accused of lesser offences that cannot result in a prison sentence, such as speeding, driving without insurance, TV license evasion and train fare evasion.

Defendants receive a notice containing the charge by post, with a statement setting out the facts of the offence and guidance on what steps to take, including their right to a lawyer. They have the option to plead guilty by post or online, or ask for a court hearing. There must be a hearing if they want to plead not guilty, but defendants sometimes ask for a hearing to plead guilty, for example if they want to argue against a driving ban.

If they plead guilty or do not respond within the 21-day time limit, their case will be dealt with through the SJP. If they plead not guilty or ask for a court hearing, the case goes to a hearing in open court. No defendant can be dealt with via the SJP against their will.

A single magistrate conducts SJP, advised by a professional lawyer dealing with the case on paper. There’s no prosecutor or defendant present. They can deal with the case at any time, rather than on a specific date.

The same law and principles apply to trials in a single justice procedure as a traditional trial. The prosecution must prove their case beyond reasonable doubt and their written evidence must satisfy the same rules as evidence in a trial in open court.

How was the Single Justice Procedure expanded?

From 4 January 2023, prosecutors can deal with non-imprisonable cases involving companies without the need to go to court.

For companies, non-imprisonable cases are for lesser offences, such as:

• excess vehicle weight
• lack of or incorrect operator’s licence
• tachograph offences
• failure to give identification of a driver

SJP will be the same for companies as it is for individuals. The decision as to whether to prosecute a company using SJP or in court is decided by the prosecutor.

As with all SJP cases, defendants can still choose to have their case heard in a court. They can also submit a plea on paper, rather than electronically, where needed.

When a company is a defendant, the plea and means forms must be signed by either a:

• company secretary
• company director
• company solicitor

We recommend that any individual or company facing prosecution take early legal advice to secure the best outcome.

Contact one of our expert criminal lawyers

 We have offices across the East Midlands.  Should you receive paperwork relating to a court hearing you can find your nearest office here.

Alternatively you can use the contact form below:

All posts by Andrew Wesley/h3>

Mr Bates vs. The Post Office – the story so far

The Post Office Horizon affair has been described as one of the UK’s most widespread miscarriages of justice. It has been a long, complicated and contested saga, involving a campaign for justice, various court cases, compensation schemes, and currently a public inquiry.

The recent docu-drama on ITV has focused public attention upon the scandal.

Beginning in 1999, a number of postmasters (who run individual post offices) experienced difficulties with the Horizon Post Office computer system. The system had faults which showed false shortfalls on the accounts of postmasters. Because of the shortfalls reported by Horizon, some postmasters were suspended or had their contracts terminated, and others were prosecuted, convicted, and imprisoned (for example, for false accounting and fraud).

In 2016, a group of postmasters used a group litigation order (GLO) to take legal action against the Post Office for damages relating to the consequences from the faulty Horizon system. Following rulings from the High Court in the Bates vs The Post Office High Court case, the Post Office settled.

Post Office has identified a total of 700 convictions in cases it prosecuted between 1999 and 2015 in which Horizon computer evidence might have featured.

The total number of all overturned convictions as of 3 January 2024 is 93. This includes five cases in which Post Office was not the prosecutor.

More than £32.4 million has been paid in compensation to date, including 30 full and final settlements.

Convictions data (as of 8 January 2024)

Total relevant convictions (1999 – 2015)	700
Number of completed appeal cases	142
Number of convictions overturned	88
Number of convictions upheld/ cases refused permission to appeal or withdrawn from Court	54
Number of cases currently with Appeal Courts	5
Number of people with relevant convictions not yet contacted – so far unable to be located and require further tracing	25

For whatever reason, some 500 or more victims of this appalling scandal have yet to have their convictions overturned. Whilst some may well be guilty of theft or other offences, it is generally accepted that the vast majority were not.

Understandably, many people may wish to forget this period in their lives, in part perhaps due to a deep mistrust of the criminal justice system.

The slow pace of providing justice for the postmasters increases the harm that has been caused, and some are calling for more radical measures, including an Act of Parliament to wipe convictions from the record.

If you are affected by this scandal and wish to discuss your legal options, then please do not hesitate to get in touch.

Contact an expert criminal defence lawyer to advise on appeal

We have offices across the East Midlands and will happily travel across the country to provide representation for all types of offences.

Alternatively you can use the contact form below.

All posts by Andrew Wesley/h3>

Juror Bias?

Any avid fan of American courtroom drama will be familiar with the idea of lawyers using ingenious methods to try and select a favourable jury panel. In England and Wales, the scope for objection is minimal, and in most cases, the jurors chosen to sit will remain on the case until it is over.

Many defendants may question the potential for juror bias in situations where the type of crime being tried has impacted a juror.

R v Skeete

This issue arose in a recent Court of Appeal case of R v Skeete when the jury sent a note to the Judge in these terms:

“There is a concern from a member of the jury that two other members of the jury have close personal experience of sexual assault and rape – and whether this has influenced their verdict. Is this a concern?”

The judgment records the following:

“…[the Judge] heard full argument from both sides in relation to the application by Ms Thomas for discharge of the entire jury. Her argument in summary was: the note sent on the afternoon of 20 January indicated the possibility of bias on the part of one or more jurors; it would be essential to establish the facts in relation to such bias were the trial to continue; that could not be done since the jury were in retirement and, on the face of it, had reached a verdict; the only safe course was to discharge the jury.

The prosecution submitted that discharge of the jury without any further step being taken was inappropriate. Rather, the jury should be given further directions to ensure that they decided the case only on the evidence.”

In this case, the Judge declined to discharge the jury.  The defendant was subsequently convicted.

The Court of Appeal decided that:

1. On the face of it the note was penned by a spokesperson – possibly the person who was to deliver the verdict – reporting the position in relation to other members of the jury.
2. Its natural meaning was that, at some point during the jury’s deliberations, two members of the jury had explained that they had close personal experience of sexual assault and rape.
3. A third member of the jury had expressed a concern that this experience could have influenced the verdict of the two members of the jury.
4. This concern was not expressed in terms of any direct assertion that it had led to an influence nor was the nature of the supposed influence explained.
5. The jury note in this instance did not make any direct assertion of bias. It raised a concern that, in a case where the allegation was rape, the personal experience of jurors might have influenced their view of the case. The concern was expressed in vague and imprecise terms.
6. The evidence was that two members of the jury had particular personal experiences. The fact that they mentioned them at some point when they were trying an allegation of rape of itself does not indicate bias. The jury note did not provide evidence that jurors were not staying true to their oaths. Rather, it expressed a generalised concern of one juror in the light of what the other jurors had revealed of their personal experience.

In conclusion, the court ruled that:

“In our view the facts as presented to the judge did not require him to discharge the entire jury.”

In so finding, the appeal against conviction was rejected.

Seek our expert advice on Crown Court trials

Seeking legal advice at the earliest opportunity will allow us to provide advice to you about the law and the evidence in either a police investigation or a prosecution.

If you have been interviewed by the police and face court proceedings we can make a real difference to the outcome of your case.

Legal aid may well be available to fund your defence at court.

Examples of how we will prepare your jury trial can be read here.

We have offices across the East Midlands and will happily travel across the country to provide representation types of offences.

Alternatively you can use the contact form below.