All posts by Andrew Wesley/h3>

Nottingham criminal defence solicitor Nick Walsh recently represented a client who was in her sixties and of good character.  She was charged with an assault by beating.  The alleged victim was her neighbour, a male in his twenties.  Cross allegations were made.

Neighbour dispute with a history of complaints

The background to the allegation was a history of complaints being made to the police by both parties.  On this occasion it was alleged by the neighbour that he had been walking past our client’s address.  As he did so she had shouted abuse from her window.  She called him over to her window.  When he approached and asked what she wanted it was said that she punched him in the face causing injury.

Free and independent legal advice in police interview

Nick’s client sought our free and independent advice in police  interview.  Having taken that advice she chose to answer questions.  She admitted hitting her neighbour.  Our client maintained, however, that this was because he had approached her, both drunk and abusive, and she thought that he was going to hit her.

She then went on to tell the police about an incident that had taken place the following week.  His behaviour had been similar, but fortunately another neighbour had intervened to protect her.

Despite these denials, her age and lack of convictions, the police chose to charge our client.  As is often the case the police failed to investigate the allegations that our client made about the complainant.

Nick’s client appeared at Nottingham Magistrates’ Court.  She entered a not guilty plea and the case was adjourned for trial.  In the meantime Nick traced the neighbour who had assisted during the second incident.

Cross allegations investigated with our help

As a result Nick advised his client to make a further  complaint to the police.  He helped her in making contact with the police and reminded them of their duty to investigate her complaint.  As a result the police were finally persuaded to interview the neighbour in relation to the second incident.  Bearing in mind this allegation was supported by an independent witness, the complainant was charged and became a defendant in these separate proceedings.

Successful written advocacy

Prior to trial Nick was able to make representations to the Crown Prosecution Service.  He argued that the second incident was very important.  It left the credibility of the complainant in ruins.  The prosecution accepted that he had behaved as described in the second incident.  Nick’s client’s defence was that he had behaved the same way a week before.  As a result, he suggested that there was no longer a reasonable prospect of conviction.

The prosecution accepted this argument and discontinued the prosecution of our client.

Instruct a Nottingham Criminal Defence Solicitor

If you face charges before the court you will want to instruct an expert defence solicitor who is alive to the possibilities of written advocacy as well as the usual advocacy involving speaking in court.

Although this was a case where there may well have been a successful outcome at trial, we know that the sooner a case can be resolved in a client’s favour, the better for them.  As a result, rather than wait for the trial date, Nick ensured that the prosecution had no alternative but to discontinue the case once the cross allegations were made.

You can contact our Nottingham office on 0115 9599550 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, for emergency free and independent advice and representation in the police station.  Alternatively, contact us during office hours to make an appointment to see on of our solicitors.

There is also a contact form that you can use below.

All posts by Andrew Wesley/h3>

Chesterfield Crime Solicitor Kevin Tomlinson had to use all of his experience and persuasive advocacy to ensure that his client did not receive a prison sentence after his breach of a suspended sentence order.

Kevin’s client was charged with nine offences.  Five of these were committed whilst he was subject to a suspended sentence order.  The law is such that if an offence is committed during the lifetime of a suspended sentence a court must activate the suspended sentence.   The only opportunity a person will have to avoid this is where it is successfully argued that it would be unjust to do so.

It was perhaps the case that in the circumstances that Kevin’s client found himself in, custody would seem inevitable.  In the event, Kevin  managed to achieve for his client what at first seemed impossible.

Allegations in breach of a suspended sentence order

Kevin’s client had been arrested in relation to a number of thefts from shops.  Perhaps unsurprisingly Kevin’s client was a drug user.  The offences were committed over a period of time, but he was interviewed about them by the police in a single interview.

In interview, Kevin’s client accepted each offence.  Because of his record the police had kept him for court on a Saturday morning.  Kevin represented him when he pleaded guilty to all of the offences.

The court had insufficient information to allow our client to be sentenced at a Saturday court.  As a result the case was adjourned until later in the week for the sentencing hearing.  Unfortunately, our client was remanded into prison to await sentence.

The sentencing hearing

At the sentencing hearing, Kevin set about securing information to put before the court in a bid to convince them that it would be unjust to send his client to prison for breach of a suspended sentence and the new offences.

Kevin took all the information that he would need to provide the court with detailed personal mitigation.  He took the time not to rush through this important part of the process, resisting pressure from the court for the case to be called on.

After taking these instructions, Kevin’s next port of call was the probation service.  The probation staff confirmed that our client was progressing well on his suspended sentence order in terms of trying to tackle his drug use.

As a result, Kevin had enough helpful information to allow him to argue that his client should not receive an immediate prison sentence but should be given a further chance.  This was a credible argument even though there was a breach of a suspended sentence order.

Prison sentence avoided

Kevin’s client was due to be sentenced before the resident District Judge at Chesterfield Magistrates’ Court.  Following the prosecution opening and some information from the probation service, Kevin then addressed the Judge.

He argued at length on behalf of his client.  Kevin relied upon the reasons behind the offending, some personal mitigation, the good progress under the order and the short period spend in prison before sentence.  In conclusion he asked the Judge to decide that it would be unjust to impose the sentence for breach of a suspended sentence order.

After listening to this mitigation the District Judge agreed with Kevin.  He decided to impose a sentence which allowed our to retain his freedom.  Kevin’s client was understandably delighted with the outcome and relieved to not face a custodial sentence.

Free legal aid funding in the Magistrates’ Court

Our client had the benefit of legal aid. for these hearings in the Magistrates’ Court.   This means that our advice and representation of him was free of charge to him.

Instruct a Chesterfield criminal defence solicitor

If you find yourself being investigated by the police or facing court proceedings then please contact us immediately.  Our office number 0246 283000 is answered 24 hours a day, 7 days a week to ensure that you receive emergency free and independent legal advice if you are being interviewed by the police.

Advice and assistance in police interview will always be free of charge to you.  If you case proceeds to either the Magistrates’ or Crown Court then we will give you the best advice as to whether you are entitled to legal aid or alternative ways of funding your case.

Alternatively you can contact us using the form below.

All posts by Andrew Wesley/h3>

Chesterfield Motoring Solicitor Kevin Tomlinson was recently instructed in a case where his client was at real risk of a driving disqualification. Kevin made a successful exceptional hardship argument on his behalf so a driving ban was avoided.

What is an Exceptional hardship argument?

All drivers will know that when they reach 12 penalty points they are liable for a minimum six month driving ban under the totting up procedure.

A driver can, however, avoid this disqualification if it can be shown that exceptional hardship would result from a disqualification.  If successful, a driver will be able to keep their license even though they have reached 12 penalty points.

The concept of “exceptional hardship” is not exhaustively defined by the law. It does, however, have to be more than an inconvenience caused as a natural result of a driving ban.

Issues that could amount to exceptional hardship may include:

• Loss of a job resulting in loss of accommodation
• An inability to get to any work due to geographical and public transport restrictions
• Loss of employment of third parties due to a businesses having to close

A driver will usually have to give evidence to the court on oath to support the exceptional hardship argument.

Travel to Norwich Magistrates’ Court

Our client faced three separate sets of proceedings before three different courts.   It was important that Kevin ensure that all three cases were before a single court as his client wished to make an exceptional hardship argument to avoid disqualification.

This is because a successful argument cannot be put more than once in a three year period.  As a result, had the exceptional hardship argument succeeded in one set of proceedings, it could not have been argued in the other cases.

In any event, this client’s case was particularly complicated.  Kevin had to apply to set aside certain convictions and overturn a driving disqualification imposed in absence before all cases were finally listed before Norwich Magistrates’ Court.

Our client chose to instruct Kevin to travel to Norwich as he knew that he would put forward skillful legal argument on his behalf.

Our client left with 19 penalty points

Due to the nature of our client’s employment which took him all over the Country, he would have an argument to say that to disqualify him him cause exceptional hardship over and above that which will normally follow a driving ban.

Kevin advanced the exceptional hardship argument on behalf of his client.  Even though by now his client had 19 penalty points on his licence, this was the only way he could avoid a disqualification from driving.

Evidence on oath to support exceptional hardship argument

His client gave evidence to the court about the difficulties he would face if he lost his licence.  Perhaps significantly, he was also able to give evidence of the impact of losing his job on his partner and the risk of them losing their accommodation.

Fortunately for his client, Kevin made a successful exceptional hardship argument on his behalf.   The court then chose to exercise its discretion not to impose a driving disqualification. This meant that our client could continue driving.  There were, however, financial penalties and costs to pay as a result of these offences.

Kevin’s experience meant that he was unable to unpick the tangle of convictions to ensure that his client had an opportunity to avoid a driving ban.  His persuasive advocacy skills were then able to secure the result his client needed.

Representation by way of an affordable fixed fee

It is unlikely that legal aid will be available for a case like this.  Here, Kevin agreed a fixed fee with his client that included the expense of travel to Norwich.

In the event, this fee was a small price to pay in order that our client kept his driving license.

Contact a Chesterfield Motoring Law Solicitor

If you face a driving ban then you will require affordable advice and representation from an expert road traffic law solicitor.   Chesterfield road traffic law solicitor Kevin Tomlinson can be contacted at our Chesterfield office on 01246 283000.

Alternatively, there may be one of our other offices that is more convenient to you.  You can find the details of these offices here.

You can also use the contact form below.

All posts by Andrew Wesley/h3>

The forensic Testing Scandal – Is My Conviction Safe?

New details have emerged about forensic testing deficiencies at two of the country’s leading laboratories. The police are currently investigating the circumstances.  As a result of this investigation a number of people have been arrested.  People will be asking themselves ‘Is my conviction safe?’

Randox Testing Services (RTS) and Trimega Laboratories handle samples for some of the most high-profile criminal and family law cases.  As a result the accuracy of the tests are of paramount importance to people facing criminal prosecution for offences ranging from drink driving to murder.

Home Office Minister Nick Hurd told parliament:

‘Most drug tests from RTS between 2013 and 2017 are being treated as potentially unreliable. RTS was mainly commissioned by individual police forces when investigating criminal offences.’

It is believed that the results from as many as 10,000 tests could be under review.

Is Your Conviction Safe?

If a conviction in your case rested wholly or partially on the reliability of forensic tests, it is essential that you seek further legal advice immediately.

While the Crown Prosecution Service will be carrying out a review into criminal cases this will take a considerable period of time.  Some reports are mentioning a three year time frame.  Many will be questioning in any event whether the body that brought the prosecution in the first place is ideally placed to make decisions as to the safety or otherwise of a conviction.

Criticisms of the laboratories have previously been raised over the years, but it appears that the police and the prosecution continued to be content with the results produced.

Those who might be affected by an analysis by these laboratories will, therefore, wish to consider whether any further forensic testing ought to take place, and even whether or not there are grounds to appeal. All convictions involving these laboratories will need to be considered on a case by case basis.

Even if your cases did not involve the two laboratories currently under investigation, this scandal throws a spotlight on the hidden world of forensic testing and may call into doubt results from other forensic testing providers.

How we can assist with an unsafe conviction?

Regardless of whether VHS Fletchers handled your case initially our experienced team of criminal defence lawyers has the expertise to ensure the safety of your conviction is beyond question.

If you believe that inaccurate forensic testing may have led you to be wrongfully convicted (and that includes pleading guilty to an offence), please contact your nearest office to speak to one of our expert criminal lawyers.

Alternatively you can use the contact form below to request a call back.  We can help answer your question ‘Is my conviction safe?’

All posts by Andrew Wesley/h3>

‘Laughing gas’ is more properly known as Nitrous Oxide.  It was recently back in the news following a Court of Appeal ruling that the substance is controlled by the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016.

The Act makes it an offence to possess psychoactive substances with intent to supply.  In a certain number of limited cases, just possession a psychoactive substance alone is also an offence.

The appeals came about because of some cases reported in August 2017.  In those case, Judges had ruled that laughing gas remained exempt from control under the Act.

The issue for the appeal was whether Nitrous Oxide was a ‘medicinal product’.  If it was, then the offence could not have been committed.

In the four cases before the Court of Appeal, two appellants had been convicted after trial.  The remaining two had pleaded guilty.

Following the hearing of the appeals the court ruled:

‘We are satisfied that in the circumstances of these cases the nitrous oxide in question could not be categorised as a medicinal product and therefore was not an exempted substance. In our judgment, the matter is clear on existing authority.’

So, is the matter settled?

The key words in the judgment are ‘…in the circumstances of these cases.’

So, to answer this question you need to understand a little more about the purposes of the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016. The Act applies to substances by reference to their effects.  As a result there isn’t a list made up of substances and their individual chemical composition.  The law is drafted to only criminalise their supply for the purpose of recreational drugs.

The argument has been put that because Nitrous Oxide is undoubtedly used for medical purposes, it would fall squarely within the medicinal products exemption in the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016.

The prosecution must prove an important ingredient of the offence.  This is that any defendant in question intended to supply the substance for consumption for its psychoactive effects rather than for medicinal purposes.

As a result, liability under the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016 does not depend solely on the chemical composition or the effect of the substance, but also on the intent of the person possessing it.

In one of the appeals, the court held:

‘…the purpose for which it was intended to supply the canisters was purely recreational with nothing whatsoever to do with health. This last feature coupled with the fact that the gas was intended to be used in circumstances which were not beneficial to health, indeed import some risk to health, was sufficient to take it outside the definition of medicinal product whatever label may have been on the boxes in which the canisters were originally packed.’

This case by case approach entails the possibility that different products with precisely the same chemical composition may fall within or outside the definition of medicinal product.  This will depend on the circumstances of the individual case before the court.

Seek expert criminal advice if you are investigated for offences under the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016

These cases illustrate how complex the criminal law can be.  Headlines in newspapers or online can be confusing, particularly when even the courts can come to different conclusions on the same set of facts.  In cases such as this there will be differences of scientific opinion.  It also takes some time for an appeal court to clarify the law.

In relation to Nitrous Oxide, it may be that further appeals will follow which may again alter the interpretation of the law.

If you are being investigated for any drug allegation then you will want expert advice from a criminal law specialist who is up to date with the current law.  Please contact your nearest office to discuss your case.

Our independent advice and assistance in a police interview under caution will always be free of charge to you, whether you are under arrest or being interviewed voluntarily, whether you are in a police station or at your home address.

You can find a number of other reasons why you should seek our legal advice here.

You can also contact us using the form below.