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.

All posts by Andrew Wesley/h3>

Elliott Moulster, a Trainee Solicitor in the Firm’s Regulatory Department, has been seconded to Nottingham Law Centre.  A post about his experiences during his first week can be found here.

During weeks two and three of the placement, Elliott had to work around existing commitments to his regulatory work, including time spent at the Crown Court in Newcastle-upon-Tyne for the beginning of a complex Health and Safety Executive prosecution.

Having instilled confidence in those supervising him at the Law Centre, he has been given much more responsibility and independence.  First thing in the morning he is greeted with a pile of files to review and progress.  The work will include

• contacting clients to discuss their cases
• chasing up replies from the Department of Work and Pensions
• corresponding with employers, medical practitioners and varius other individuals and bodies in order to take forward benefit claims.

One of Elliott’s more complex pieces of work to date has been drafting submissions for a client’s appeal to the Upper Appeals Tribunal. The case being appealed concerned a client’s request for Employment & Support Allowance.  This had been refused by the DWP and the First Tier Social Security Tribunal.

The Law Centre believed that these decisions were in error, and therefore were supporting their client’s appeal.  The point of law was relatively complicated, relating to EU and immigration law.  Elliott found this a fascinating piece of work to be involved in.

Elliott has also been conducting his own interviews with clients, albeit under the direct supervision of Diana Bagci.  For example, he met with a client to obtain instructions to draft an application for a Personal Indepence Payment.  He ascertained the client’s health difficulties and how his life was affected on a daily basis.  Such conversations clearly involve a high degree of sensitivity and professionalism.

Finally, Elliott has used the opportunity of working at the Law Centre to continue to be involved in the local community.  He has continued to help at the Law Centre’s local support sessions for the Roma community.

He was also invited to another community forum.  On this occasion it was to discuss the local provisions for those suffering from trauma.

Elliott attended as a representative of the Law Centre at a local community careers fair.  This was attended and enjoyed by many.

With two more weeks to go of his secondment, Elliott is keen to see what new challenges are thrown at him.

Follow this link to the Nottingham Law Centre web site to find out more about its work and to make a donation.

All posts by Andrew Wesley/h3>

Knife crime is very much on the political agenda, with a number of stabbings having taken place over the last few weeks.  These incidents resulted in death or serious injury.  In due course there will be a significant prison sentence for those found responsible.

Attention is now focused on using deterrent sentences to discourage knife possession.

Knew sentencing guideline for knife crime

The Sentencing Council, which is responsible for setting sentencing guidelines in England and Wales, has today issued a new guideline for knife crime offences.

The guideline will apply to all of those sentenced on or after 1 June 2018, regardless of the date of the offence.

What offences does it cover?

The guideline applies to offences of:

• Possession of an offensive weapon in a public place
• Possession of an article with a blade/ point in a public place
• Possession of an offensive weapon on school premises
• Possession of an article with a blade/ point on school premises
• Unauthorised possession in prison of a knife or offensive weapon
• Threatening with an offensive weapon in a public place
• Threatening with an article with a blade/ point in a public place
• Threatening with an article with a blade/ point on school premises
• Threatening with an offensive weapon on school premises

The guideline does not cover situations where a knife or other weapon is actually used to harm someone. This would come under other offences such as those relating to wounding, wounding with intent, manslaughter or murder.

Similarly, it does not include the use or possession of firearms which is covered by different legislation.

Does the guideline apply to all offenders?

The new guideline applies both to adults and those under 18. In relation to the latter, the guideline will work alongside the Sentencing Children and Young People guideline and encourage courts to look in far greater detail at the age and maturity, background and circumstances of each offender in order to reach the most appropriate sentence.  The primary aim in such cases will be to prevent re-offending.  This is the main function of the youth justice system.

What will be the effect of the new knife crime guidance?

Leading Court of Appeal judgements have emphasised the seriousness of this type of offending.  The court has set out sentence levels that senior judges see as appropriate for dealing with offenders.

The proposed guideline takes these changes to the law and court judgments into account.  It then provides consolidated and up to date guidance. It ensures that those offenders convicted of offences involving knives or particularly dangerous weapons, as well as those who repeatedly offend, will receive the highest sentences.

The introduction of the guideline may, therefore, lead to some increases in sentence levels.  This will predominantly be in relation to adults convicted of possession offences.

Are there any minimum sentences for these offences?

The law on mandatory sentences for offences involving bladed articles or offensive weapons states:

Where an offender is convicted of a second (or further) bladed article/ offensive weapon offence the court must impose a mandatory minimum sentence of 6 months’ imprisonment for an adult or 4 months’ Detention and Training Order for a youth (under 18), unless satisfied that there are circumstances relating to the offence or the offender that make it unjust to do so in all of the circumstances.

Where an offender is convicted of threatening with a bladed article/ offensive weapon the court must impose a mandatory minimum sentence of 6 months’ imprisonment for an adult or 4 months’ Detention and Training Order for a youth (under 18), unless satisfied that there are circumstances relating to the offence or the offender that make it unjust to do so in all of the circumstances.

As the guideline gives the highest sentences to those offenders who threaten with knives or highly dangerous weapons, these offenders will always receive sentences greater than six months. The combination of the legislation and the guideline may therefore mean that there is an increase in sentences received by some offenders convicted of these offences.

Where the seriousness of the combined offences is such that it falls far below the custody threshold, or where there has been a significant period of time between the offences, the court may consider it unjust to impose the statutory minimum sentence.

The court should consider the following factors to determine whether it would be unjust to impose the statutory minimum sentence:

• Strong personal mitigation
• Whether there is a strong prospect of rehabilitation
• Whether custody will result in significant impact on others

What about ‘highly dangerous weapons’?

Additional guidance has been included as to what constitutes a highly dangerous weapon.

A straightforward offensive weapon is defined in legislation as ‘any article made or adapted for use for causing injury or is intended by the person having it with him for such use.

A highly dangerous weapon must, therefore, be an offensive weapon, including a corrosive substance (such as acid), whose dangerous nature must be substantially above and beyond the usual definition.

The court must determine whether the weapon is highly dangerous on the facts and circumstances of the case.

Instruct an expert in defending those accused of knife crime

It may be that you intend to deny an allegation that you are unlawfully in possession of a knife or other weapon.  If so, the guideline might mean that more cases are sent for trial at the Crown Court.  Our expert team will ensure that your best case is put forward.

Alternatively you might be pleading guilty.  Sentencing is a complex process.  All of our advocates understand how to navigate sentencing guidelines and ensure that they are not applied in a mechanistic manner.  Instead we seek to ensure that the court focuses on all the considerations relevant to you as an individual.

You can find your nearest office here.

Alternatively you can use the contact form below.

All posts by Andrew Wesley/h3>

It is often said that there is no such thing as a dangerous dog, only a dangerous owner.  While the criminal law often refers to a ‘dangerous dog’,  the offences pursued in dangerous dog prosecutions relate to a dog being ‘dangerously out of control’.

Section 10 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 states that:

‘a dog shall be regarded as dangerously out of control on any occasion on which there are grounds for reasonable apprehension that it will injure any person (or assistance dog), whether or not it actually does so.’

Penalties

The penalties for ‘dangerous dog’ offences are severe.  They include  imprisonment of up to 14 years where death is caused.  What is is not often understood is that an offence may lead to the destruction of the dog as well.

A discretion to order destruction?

In relation to some offences the court may order destruction.  In others, the court must order destruction unless assured (by imposing strict conditions) that the dog would not constitute a danger to public safety.

When deciding whether a dog would constitute a danger to public safety, the court—

(a) must consider—

(i) the temperament of the dog and its past behaviour, and

(ii) whether the owner of the dog, or the person for the time being in charge of it, is a fit and proper person to be in charge of the dog, and

(b) may consider any other relevant circumstances.

Avoiding Destruction of a ‘dangerous dog’

In all cases where a court is considering destruction, attention must be drawn to the court’s power to order instead ‘contingent destruction’.  This will prevent the dog’s destruction provided that the conditions imposed are met.

The key case in dangerous dog prosecutions remains R v Flack [2008] EWCA Crim 204 where the following criteria were established:

“The relevant principles that can be made in respect of a dog whose owner has been convicted under section 3(1) of the 1991 Act of failing to keep a dog under control in a public place are that:

(1) The court is empowered under section 4(1) of the 1991 Act to order the destruction of the dog.

(2) Nothing in that provision shall require the court to order destruction if the court is satisfied that the dog would not constitute a danger to public safety: section 4(1)(a) of the 1991 Act.

(3) The court should ordinarily consider, before ordering immediate destruction, whether to exercise the power under section 4A(4) of the 1991 Act to order that, unless the owner of the dog keeps it under proper control, the dog shall be destroyed (“a suspended order of destruction”).

(4) A suspended order of destruction under that provision may specify the measures to be taken by the owner for keeping the dog under control whether by muzzling, keeping it on a lead, or excluding it from a specified place or otherwise: see section 4(a)(5) of the 1991 Act.

(5) A court should not order destruction if satisfied that the imposition of such a condition would mean the dog would not constitute a danger to public safety.

(6) In deciding what order to make, the court must consider all the relevant circumstances which include the dog’s history of aggressive behaviour and the owner’s history of controlling the dog concerned in order to determine what order should be made.”

What we can do to help

It is unlikely that legal argument alone will suffice to convince a court to order contingent destruction. In almost all dangerous dog prosecutions you will need the assistance of an expert in dog behaviour, alongside expert advocacy. We can arrange for the preparation of suitable expert reports and provide the advocacy for you.

Instruct an expert in defending dangerous dog prosecutions

If you are facing criminal proceedings that relate to an allegedly dangerous dog then please contact us as soon as possible. Our solicitors are well versed in this aspect of the law and will ensure your best defence is put forward before the court.

This will also include the best argument possible to ensure that your dog is not destroyed.

You can find your nearest office here to seek our specialist advice. 

Alternatively, you can use the contact form below.