The Nottingham Law Centre is currently preparing and recruiting for this year’s Nottingham Legal Walk. It is due to take place on Thursday 10 May 2018, beginning at 5.30pm. The aim is for walkers to raise funds for legal advice charities such as the Law Centre.
The Law Centre is a valuable resource for the vulnerable in Nottingham. During the financial year 2016/2017 the Law Centre helped the following clients:
David Howarth, practice manager at the Law Centre, writes:
“10K is quite a big ask for those of us who spend most of our time sat behind a desk. We take part, however, to raise much needed funds for charities like ours. This is especially important at a time of seemingly never-ending cuts.
It is also a great opportunity to raise awareness about the day-to-day issues and struggles faced by people living in Nottingham.”
Sally Denton, supervising solicitor says:
“We really need the money. We are seeing cuts in funding whilst we are trying to help more people with more complicated issues.
It is good to be able to help people avoid eviction or to secure housing after they have been street homeless for ages but it needs resources to get results.”
If you would like to join David, Sally and the Law Centre staff for some (or all) of the Nottingham Legal Walk then you can email him here for details.
As a minimum, David would ask that you keep your fingers crossed that it doesn’t rain!
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.
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.
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.
Alternatively, you can use the contact form below.
Contact
All posts by Andrew Wesley/h3>
In 2015/16, Ipsos MORI conducted a study on individuals’ legal needs on behalf of the Law Society and the Legal Services
Board (LSB). The main component of the study was an online survey to examine individuals’ experiences of 29 legal issues and the effect of receiving early legal advice.
Large scale survey about the effect of early legal advice
The survey provided quantitative findings from 8,192 participants, which examined the responses from 16,694 issues
experienced.
This included issues relating to
divorce/dissolution of civil partnerships
debt/money issues
injury at work
road traffic accidents
personal injury
legal issues with mental health issues
repossession or eviction
neighbour disputes
relationship breakdown issues
welfare benefits; discrimination
being arrested
legal issues related to children
immigration
domestic violence
homelessness
unfair treatment by the police
These are all issues which may be handled using legal processes but are not necessarily seen as being ‘legal’ in nature by those experiencing them.
The results of the analysis
This report outlines results from analysis comparing the effects on the timing of the resolution of individuals’ legal issues of receiving early professional legal advice compared to not receiving it.
The analysis showed that early advice has a statistically significant effect on the timing of the resolution of people’s legal issues.
Specifically, the analysis showed that for these issues:
On average, a quarter (25%) of people who received early professional legal advice had resolved their problem within 3-4 months of the problem first occurring, whereas for people who did not receive early legal advice it was not until 9 months after the issue had first occurred that 25% had resolved their issue.
Correspondingly, and controlling for other factors that can affect problem resolution, people who did not receive early advice were 20% less likely than average to have resolved their issue at a
particular point in time.
The main other factors affecting problem resolution were the severity of the issues, and people’s previous knowledge of their legal rights. More severe problems, as would be expected, take longer on average to resolve, and people with little previous knowledge of their legal rights were 33% less likely than average to have resolved their issue at a particular point.
Early professional legal advice was defined as ‘within 3 months of the issue first occurring’ as analysis showed that this is a reasonable definition on average across the 17 issues considered.
Professional legal advice covered advice from a solicitor, or other professional advisers such as Citizen Advice Bureaux or
trade unions.
As a result, the report stressed the importance of restoring the ability for individuals to seek early legal advice by receiving legal aid. Advice and assistance in police interview remains free of charge to all. Find out more about that here.
