All posts by Andrew Wesley/h3>

Nottingham solicitor advocate Andrew Wesley and senior Crown Court litigator Caine Ward worked together on a case dependent upon the evidence of a self-styled paedophile hunter.

The trial was heard at Nottingham Crown Court and finally resolved in our client’s favour.

‘Investigation’ followed a familiar pattern…

The case followed a familiar pattern.  The paedophile hunter had posted comments in various online chat rooms posing as a teenage girl.  A person using the profile of our client had made contact and begun a sexually inappropriate conversation including sending explicit images.  The paedophile hunter then arranged a meeting between the person and the girl.

Of course, if the person went to meet the child then instead he would be confronted by the vigilante.  The confrontation would then be filmed and posted on social media.  It is only then that the police are called.

…until nobody turned up at the meeting

This case was different, however, in that nobody turned up to the meeting apart from the hunters.  They made visits to our client’s address but again to no avail.  This did not prevent them posting their allegations on social media despite the fact they lacked the final part of the jigsaw to say who was responsible.

The police were eventually called and our client was arrested.  Following interview he was charged with the attempts to contact children to send or receive sexual images.  (((check the offences))))).  It transpired that his profile had been used in three separate contacts with children.

Defence set out very early on in proceedings

Our client set out his defence very early on.  He stated that he was not responsible for the messaging and that somebody else had been using his profile although he could not say who.  On his behalf, Caine told the court and the prosecution that the mobile phone handsets used by his client and the paedophile hunters would need to be examined by the defence bearing in mind the defence.

The evidence provided so far was in the form of screenshots rather than the individual messages within the applications.  An analysis of both the applications and WhatsApp conversations would be necessary.  The prosecution’s own telecommunications expert confirmed that such an examination would be necessary to look at the source and provenance of the messages.

One handset missing – but whose fault?

Andrew and Caine became increasingly concerned about whether the defence would have an opportunity to examine the handsets.  Eventually, in relation to two sets of allegations, the prosecution confirmed that they did not have the phone.  The key witness, the paedophile hunter, gave a statement stating that he had handed the phone to the police.  The police denied that this was the case.

It appeared unlikely that the hunter was telling the truth as neither his original statement nor that of the officers contained any reference to a phone being received into evidence.

Delayed access for our expert witness

In relation to the final set of offences, the police only permitted access a week before the trial.  The report received cast doubt on police evidence that certain photographs to be found in the screenshots of chats were recovered from our client’s phone handset.  Andrew had been unable to find them and nor could our expert.

Andrew prepared skeleton arguments.  The first was in relation to whether the prosecution ought to be allowed to carry on with the first two sets of proceedings.  There had been a failure by the police to secure key evidence.  We had been unable to properly examine the device that was the source of the screen shots.

Secondly, the Crown needed to apply to amend the indictment to add the final set of charges.  The evidence did not appear to support the addition of these new charges as key photographic images had not been found on our client’s handset, despite police assertions to the contrary.

No-show of paedophile hunter at trial

The prosecution succeeded in its application to add two new charges to the indictment.

However, the witness who was responsible for the missing handset failed to attend court on the first day of the trial.  He left a message that he would not be attending, but when further information was sought he refused to answer his phone or respond to messages.

Wisely the prosecution chose not to proceed with the first five charges.

Significant failure in disclosure of evidence by prosecution

Time had to be spent in resolving the issue of the missing photographs for the remaining two charges.  It transpired that when our expert had examined the phone of the other paedophile hunter the police had not prepared their own download so no detailed analysis was possible within the timescale allowed by the police.

Further, both our expert and Andrew had only been given half the download of our client’s own handset.  The images recovered from the memory card had not been supplied.  As a result, at lunchtime on the first day of the trial Andrew was served with two further discs.  The first was the contents of the memory card.  This amounted to over 36 000 images contained within 12 500 pages of PDF pages.

The second disc was password protected and was the download disc for the paedophile hunter’s phone.

Somebody else’s holiday photos

During the evening, Andrew began to look at the contents of the memory card.  It became clear that the photographs in the main did not belong to his client.  There were hundreds of holiday photos that did not show his client.  As the phone was brought second hand then it was assumed that these were the photos of the previous owner.  The photos were not in date order and not catalogued in a way that would allow them to be examined so Andrew abandoned his analysis.

Password given by police was wrong

Andrew was unable to view the contents of the password protected disc.  The following morning it became clear why.  The police had missed a crucial digit from the password.  When Andrew was able to open the disc at the start of day two of the trial he was faced with a further 1800 thumbnail images that were again not catalogued in a way that permitted analysis in the timescale of the trial.

Legal argument on abuse of process

As a result, Andrew prepared a further argument that maintained that it would be an abuse of the process of the court to permit the prosecution to proceed.  Alternatively, Andrew argued that all of the evidence of the chats and the photographs should be excluded for unfairness under section 78 Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.

The Judge agreed with Andrew’s abuse of process argument and stayed the proceedings.  She agreed with Andrew’s submission that in cases that were begun by amateur detectives such as paedophile hunters it was incumbent on the police and the prosecution to ensure that thereafter the defendant had the protection of the relevant law and rules.

Here our client was unable to have his case properly presented, even in relation to the last two charges, as the prosecution had not made early disclosure of relevant evidence in a way that permitted it to be examined and challenged.  Neither Andrew or the defence expert had been able to prepare a proper challenge to the evidence in the case.  Our client was unable to have a fair trial.

Proceedings were stayed and our client was discharged.  The judge made the point that even if she were wrong to have stayed proceedings, she would have agreed with the application to exclude all of the evidence upon which the prosecution could found the case.  The case would have ended in a similar way for our client.

Crown Court legal Aid ensured free representation

Our client had the benefit of legal aid.  This ensured that he did not have to pay for the representation of either Caine or Andrew.  Further, he did not have to pay for what was an expensive analysis of the handsets in this case.  More about Crown Court legal aid can be found here.

Instruct an expert in defending Crown Court cases

We have lawyers skilled in defending Crown Court trials at all of our six offices across the East Midlands.  Please find the office nearest to you here.  VHS Fletchers will provide nationwide advice and representation, whether that is in police interview, before the Magistrates or at the Crown Court.

Alternatively you can use the contact form below.

All posts by Andrew Wesley/h3>

The Police Gun Amnesty

A two-week police gun amnesty begins on 13 November 2017 across the UK.  During this period people will have an opportunity to dispose of firearms and ammunition safely.  It is advertised as there being ‘no questions asked’ upon surrender.

Who is the campaign aiming to reach?

The police gun amnesty is aimed at two distinct groups of people.  The first contains those who know they are in possession of illegal weapons or ammunition.  The second group are those who are perhaps innocent custodians of a weapon and are maybe even unsure as to its legal status.  Members of this group might be too frightened to do anything about it.

If I have a weapon what should I do?

You should ring 101 to make the necessary arrangements with the police. They will either direct you to take it to a nominated police station or arrange for its collection from you.

You do not have to give the police any information about yourself or the weapon if you do not wish to do so.

Will, I face prosecution?

As this is an amnesty you will not be prosecuted for possessing the weapon or ammunition at the point it is handed over to the police.

The police have made it clear, however, that the firearm may be inspected further to see whether it can be connected to any past criminal offences.

If the police discover that the weapon has been used in criminal activity then this will give rise to a further investigation.  The amnesty does not prevent the police arresting, interviewing and prosecuting people for those other offence

Are we able to help?

You might be in one of the groups who wish to take advantage of the amnesty.  You may, however, be worried about the issue of whether any criminal liability will arise.

If you have these worries then you will want to take advice before you take any action.  Please contact one of our specialist criminal lawyers at the nearest office to you.

Alternatively, please use the contact form below.

All posts by Andrew Wesley/h3>

In recent months the penalties for speeding in a motor vehicle have increased dramatically since April 2017.  This includes a reduction in the threshold at which a defendant faces a driving disqualification.  You can read more about this here.

As a result the risk of being disqualified following a speeding conviction is much higher than previously.  Chesterfield motoring law solicitor David Gittins was recently instructed by a client who faced disqualification for speeding.

In this case, although there was no mitigation to be put forward to prevent a driving disqualification, David was able to advance powerful mitigation to secure a very short disqualification,  The ban would have little impact on our client’s ability to continue with his employment.

The Allegation

David’s client, who was only nineteen years old, had been seen by police driving his car at twice the legal limit.  Unfortunately he was driving at more than twice the legal limit.

On being pulled over by the police he gave his details and then had to await the inevitable speeding summons and court date.

Client appearance at Chesterfield Magistrates’ Court

David had been instructed to represent our client prior to the court date.  Although entering a guilty plea will be easy for an unrepresented defendant facing a speeding charge, choosing what extra information will favourably influence the outcome of their case.

This may conclude telling the Magistrates’ what happened and why.  A defendant’s demeanour or lack of appreciation of the gravity of his case might mean that they approach the case in a manner guaranteed to aggravate the situation.

The starting point for Magistrates will always be that speeding can have very serious consequences and they will be looking to see an appropriate level of regret and remorse.  More can be read about that here.

With this in mind David took instructions to see what personal mitigation would be available to his client.  As he worked in the motor trade he needed a driving licence.  His job would remain open to him if there could be a successful argument for a short disqualification.  He lived in a rural area with an almost non-existent public transport system.

Successful mitigation of driving disqualification

David had already considered the sentencing guidelines so directed his mitigation at the relevant aspects of the guideline.  By focussing on the positive elements of his client’s character, including his employment, David was able to secure a favourable sentencing outcome.

Our client was eventually fined and disqualified from driving.  The disqualification was only for 21 days however. This was at the very lower end of the sentencing range.  David’s client was particularly happy as he was due to go on a foreign holiday for fourteen days of the disqualification when he wouldn’t be driving in any event.  This meant that he would only have to miss one week of work.

His job was secured and our client was extremely satisfied with the result.  He appreciated that had be represented himself it was likely that his approach was likely to be less focussed and it may well have been that he didn’t secure the same outcome.

Since this case, David has already referred a further referral from his client who has instructed him in a similar matter.

Affordable fixed fees

Legal aid is not normally available for cases of this nature.  As a result our client instructed us on a private basis.  For most motoring offences fixed fees can be agreed and this was the case here.

Instruct a Chesterfield Road Traffic solicitor

If you wish to instruct David for any road traffic or criminal matter please contact him at our Chesterfield office on 01246 283000 or alternatively use the contact form below.  While we can make no promises about the outcome of any case, we are best placed to argue against a driving disqualification or to reduce the length of a driving ban.

All posts by Andrew Wesley/h3>

Closure of Newark Custody Suite

Response to Consultation

This is the response of VHS Fletchers to the consultation paper released by the Legal Aid Agency (LAA) following the notification on 25 October 2017 of the closure of Newark custody suite with effect from 6 November 2017.

All Newark arrests from that date will be taken to and processed at Mansfield Custody Suite.  The residents of Newark have already lost one public resource, that being the ability of the police station to process prisoners.  There is a very real risk that they will lose another – detainees receiving advice from solicitors local to Newark.

The consultation document invites responses to three alternative revisions to the Newark and Mansfield Police Station Duty Solicitor Schemes. Only one of those appears to put the needs of those from Newark who are arrested first.

Since the consultation document was published there have been two important indications from the police which impact upon the proposals:

• Cases that are identified as Newark cases will continue to be charged and either bailed or held to appear at Nottingham Magistrates’ Court rather than Mansfield Magistrates’ Court.
• The police will continue to contact the Newark Duty Solicitor Scheme in cases which are identified as “Newark arrests” and will ensure that the Duty Solicitor Call Centre (“DSCC”) is informed in all cases where the detainee was arrested for an offence committed in Newark.

It follows from these indications that Mansfield custody suite is able to and intends to identify cases that have historically been dealt with at Newark police station.  As a result, they should be able to direct those who seek the advice of a duty solicitor to a firm local to Newark.

The proposed options for changes to the scheme can be summarised as follows:

1. That the Newark Police Station Duty Scheme is merged with the Mansfield Police Station Duty Scheme with effect from 1 January 2018 with members of an extended Mansfield scheme covering both Mansfield and Newark police stations.
2. That the Newark Police Station Scheme is retained as a separate scheme and Duty Solicitors on the Newark rota will be directed by the DSCC to attend at Mansfield police station.
3. Newark Police Station Scheme retained as a separate scheme and firms post 1 January 2018 can elect to join either the Mansfield police station duty rota or standalone Newark scheme (if retained under option 2)

The LAA have helpfully indicated that they prefer option 1. The reason given is that options 2 and 3 are reliant upon the police being able to identify to the DSCC “Newark cases”.  A more cynical view might be that the LAA and DSCC would have one less scheme to administer under option 1, resulting in an inevitable reduction in administration costs.

Fortunately, since the consultation document was published, the police have set out their intention to continue to identify Newark cases at the point of arrest and charge.

As a result, there appears to be no requirement for option 1 to be adopted unless there are ulterior motives on behalf of the LAA.

VHS Fletchers supports Option 2 for the following reasons:

This firm’s investment in Newark

When new legal aid contracts were to be awarded this firm chose to apply for a contract for a new Newark office.  The closure of Newark custody suite was not anticipated.  The office is staffed with two crime solicitors local to Newark – Ian Carter and Barbara McDonnell.  We have since recruited a further Newark based lawyer – Legal Executive Advocate Nikki Carlisle – signalling a clear indication to continue to develop our business there.

Of course, we are in business.  The rationale behind the investment that we make in training and recruitment of duty solicitors is that they provide access to new work through the duty solicitor rotas. Option 3 supports those firms who, like us, have chosen to locate their offices in Newark in order to provide legal aid services to that particular community.

Newark deserves its own duty solicitor rota

Newark-on-Trent is the largest urban area within the Newark and Sherwood District.  It has a population of just over 37 000 residents. Of the three firms in Newark that currently undertaking criminal Legal Aid work, only our firm has office both in Mansfield and Newark.

Should Option 1 be adopted, Newark residents who are detained at Mansfield police station may very well be represented by a duty solicitor from a firm who only has an office in Mansfield.  It is understandable that suspects will usually choose to have continuity of representation.  This might be either whilst they remain on police bail, under investigation or following charge when the matter appears at court.

Prohibitive journey times

However, in seeking continuity, such clients would face a journey of 20 miles simply to see their solicitor to give instructions and take advice. By car that journey takes between 40 and 50 minutes.  By public transport this time rises to 1 hour and 30 minutes for a single journey.

The same situation will of course arise in relation to residents of Mansfield who are represented by a duty solicitor who only has an office in Newark.  It is true that many of those that require the services of criminal legal aid solicitors are vulnerable themselves and on a low income that would make such a journey very difficult.

It is our view that it is both unreasonable and unconscionable to expect those being investigated for criminal offences to have a return journey of three hours simply to see their solicitor.  This stress and expense would be imposed on top of the emotional burden that the investigation of proceedings impose on any individual.

Local legal aid solicitors should be supported

Option 2 supports those criminal legal aid firms who have chosen to locate their offices in Newark.  This is in order to provide legal aid services to that community. It would mean that the arrangements within Option 2 could commence immediately following the closure of the Newark Custody Suite.  Newark based firms would not have to suffer the inevitable financial hardship of not having access to Duty Solicitor work for a period of two months.

Such a decision would be seen as supportive of a legal aid provider base that it is acknowledged is financially fragile.

Perverse consequences of merging two duty schemes

The perverse consequences of Option 1 would be to permit automatic access to Newark residents requesting the duty solicitor  to firms solely based in Mansfield.  Access to such Mansfield residents would be granted to firms solely based in Newark.

Whilst some firms may see there is a financial advantage in having a place on a merged duty scheme following the closure of Newark custody suite, this would be to ignore the needs of local Newark residents.   Financial advantage should never be allowed to outweigh the impact on those we represent and assist who are often ill-equipped to represent themselves.

On this basis, Options 2 and 3 would be unattractive and unacceptable to clients where the duty solicitor may or may not be based geographically convenient to them.

An increase in LAA costs?

The LAA will have to budget for increased travel claims from Newark firms to Mansfield custody suite following the closure of Newark custody suite.  An additional consequence is likely to be that the LAA has to fund more instances of advice and assistance in the police station.  It seems likely that clients, once they discover where their duty solicitor is based, will want to transfer to a local firm.  Where the duty solicitor has been instructed a second fee may be properly claimable by the second local firm nearer to a suspects home address

Clients to choose for themselves

Following the closure of Newark custody suite, if clients wish to choose a geographically distant firm then that must be a matter for them. To have a geographically distant firm inflicted upon them is a separate matter that should be avoided where possible.  The risk of a reduction in access to justice must be apparent to all who consider the issue.  The problem would be avoided by the adoption of Option 2.

Instruct a Newark crime solicitor

Despite the closure of Newark custody suite, the best way to ensure that you instruct a solicitor local to you if you are a Newark resident is to make sure you ask for VHS Fletchers if you are arrested and detained by the police.  We offer free and independent legal advice on 01636 614013, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks of the year.

If you know the police want to speak to you, contact us and we will be able to make the necessary arrangements for you to be interviewed.

Should you face proceedings at either the Magistrates’ or Crown Court then we will see you at our Newark office to take your instructions and give you expert advice.

Please use the contact form below if you wish to email your enquiry.

All posts by Andrew Wesley/h3>

Senior crown court litigator Sarah Lees-Collier recently represented a client appearing for Crown Court trial at Leicester Crown Court.  He faced an extremely serious charge of wounding with intent, contrary to section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.

Negotiation resolved the case to our client’s satisfaction.

Section 18 Offences Against the Person Act 1861

The allegation was made more serious by a number of factors.  Our client had not acted alone but with another to assault the victim.  Although fists were used to begin with, the victim was then assaulted with a knife.  Finally, the offence took place in a student halls of residence, so the victim had been assaulted in their own home.

Some of the incident had been captured on CCTV.

The complainant received two black eyes, a cut above his eye that required stitches, a broken nose and fractured cheek bone.

Sarah’s client was of good character with no convictions or even cautions recorded against him.  He was a student himself.

Sentencing Guidelines

Following conviction after trial the sentencing guidelines would have suggested that a starting point of six years in prison, within a range of five to nine years.  Arguably this could have been categorised as a ‘sustained assault’ which would have made the sentence even longer.

An alternate plea to a lesser charge

On the day of trial our client was represented by barrister Nick Bechey from Great James Street chambers.  We received instructions to offer a plea to the lesser charge under section 20 Offences Against the Person Act 1861.  This offer of plea was accepted by the prosecution.

As a result, the judge had a greater flexibility on sentence and instead of a lengthy prison sentence our client received a suspended sentence with community elements.  He was very pleased and relieved with the outcome.

Instruct an expert crown court litigator

If you face proceedings before the Crown Court then you will want to know that you are instructing a specialist crown court defence lawyer to fight your case.  You can contact Sarah on 0115 9599550.  Alternatively, we have expert lawyers to help with your Crown Court case at all of our offices.  Find your nearest office here.

You can also use the contact form below.