All posts by Andrew Wesley/h3>

Education Law and Criminal Defence Solicitor Clare Roberts was welcomed by students at West Bridgford School on the afternoon of Monday 21 September.  Following an invitation she delivered a talk about ‘Routes into Law’ to sixth form students who are contemplating studying law at university.

The talk focused on university applications including what to do if you do not get your expected grades, as well as the proposed changes in the route to qualification as a result of the proposed scrapping of the Legal Practice Course in 2020.

Clare also spoke with students about ‘a day in the life of a solicitor’ so that they had a sense of what a day at court was like, including the unpredictable hours!  Further information about the unpredictable nature of the work can be found here.

The students who attended the talk had lots of questions to ask about studying law at university.  Clare was also able to help with how the training within a firm thereafter will work.

Clare was really impressed with how knowledgeable the students were about their career options but also impressed by the careers education scheme run by Caroline Nolan at the school, which sees a variety of different professionals give talks to sixth form students at the school over the next few months.

It appears that the students were equally impressed by Clare, who received some positive feedback.  We hope we will be able to assist this and other schools again in the future.

If you think your students might be helped by a presentation such as this one then please contact us using the form below.  It is likely that we will be able to provide a solicitor local to your school or college to assist with any information you might need.

Contact

• Name
• Phone Number
• Email
• Message
• CAPTCHA

All posts by Andrew Wesley/h3>

Magistrates should be able to jail offenders for up to a year, the lord chief justice has said.

Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd said that it was a “good time” to grapple with the issue because it was unlikely to cause problems with increased prison numbers.

“We do have a serious problem with those sentenced long-term,” he said. “But there is not a problem with that part [short-term prisoners] of the prison population.”  Lord Thomas was speaking as he formally opened the new premises of the Magistrates’ Association in Vauxhall, south London, last week.

Magistrates can currently hand out sentences up to six months in length. Doubling the limit would mean more than 10,000 cases being tried by magistrates rather than the crown court, leading to estimated savings of up to £40 million a year.

About 85,000 people are in prison in England and Wales, which Lord Thomas has described as a “very, very high” number. He told MPs last autumn that more could be done to explore keeping offenders out of jail, including the use of “very tough non-custodial penalties”.

For years magistrates have been calling for increased sentencing powers, but ministers have resisted because of fears that it would swell prison numbers. However, magistrates insist that in a “worst case scenario” the rise in inmates would be no more than 1,000 a year.

Trials in the crown court cost £3,400 a day compared with £900 for those tried in magistrates’ courts. Magistrates say that if an estimated 5,514 contested trials and 5,329 guilty pleas that require sentencing were handled by magistrates, there would be a saving in total costs of £30-£40 million.

Malcolm Richardson, national chairman of the Magistrates Association (MA), said that the reform could “be done quickly, without the need for primary legislation.”

He added that it “would enable more cases to remain in the Magistrates’ court, ensuring that cases are dealt with more quickly and reducing pressure on crown courts. Giving magistrates the power to sentence for up to 12 months would make for swifter, more efficient and more local justice and should be implemented without further delay.”

This content is from The Brief newsletter.  You can sign up for it here.

All posts by Andrew Wesley/h3>

Majority of rape case juries reach guilty verdict before deliberation

Nearly half of all juries in rape cases come to a guilty verdict before they retire to the jury room to deliberate, research shows.

The study found that 43 per cent of jurors came to their decision in advance, with the figure as high as 83 per cent if they themselves had been the victim of a sexual assault. However, the jury room deliberations did have an impact, with 13 per cent changing their minds after discussion with fellow jurors.

The research also showed that a juror’s educational background had significant implications for verdicts. Those who never made it to degree level were more likely to vote “not guilty” because of an increased tendency to hold more sexually aggressive attitudes.

Mock rape trials used in study

The study was conducted by the University of Huddersfield with legal advice and support from St Johns Buildings, the Manchester barristers’ chambers, using mock trials. The findings may increase calls for jurors in the UK to be screened for pre-conceived bias before being selected, particularly in rape trials, the researchers said.

Ministry of Justice statistics from 2015 reveal that just 1,297 convictions of sexual offences were secured, representing less than four per cent of all cases recorded by police over the 12 months.

Dominic Willmott, a researcher at Huddersfield University and lecturer in forensic psychology at Leeds Trinity University, said that the research demonstrated “that for all the best efforts of the courts, juries are not necessarily offering a fair and impartial assessment of the evidence, particularly within rape cases.

Demographic and  personal attitudes key

“Past experiences play a huge role in shaping the person you are, and inevitably affects your view on society. As well as the importance of demographic features of the jurors, attitudes towards rape were found to be the strongest predictor of high numbers of not guilty verdicts.”

Nigel Booth, a barrister at St John’s Buildings, played the role of the judge, with other barristers acting for the prosecution and defence.

The content is from The Brief newsletter.  You can sign up here.

All posts by Andrew Wesley/h3>

People appear reluctant to seek advice for a police interview.  Why?

You should always ask for VHS Fletchers in police interview because…

We are free.

No matter what time of the day or night, or how long a solicitor has to spend providing you with expert advice and assistance, our services will be free to you as we hold a legal aid contract with the government.

The government recognises that the last thing a person will want to think about when detained by the police under investigation will be whether they can afford to be represented.

You don’t need to worry about that. Ever.

What other reason could you need?

We don’t mind being woken up.

Well, not really.

It is part of a criminal legal aid solicitors job to answer the phone in the middle of the night to give advice, and attend the police station where necessary.

VHS Fletchers is large enough to ensure that solicitors have a break from being on call. We also have the staff to make sure that a member of the firm deals with your case rather than pass your case to an agent.

It is one of your rights so you should use it.

You have the right to legal advice so it must be important. Make sure you exercise that right.

We are experts in the field of criminal law.

It is perhaps unlikely that you will have a knowledge of police practices, court procedure, rules of evidence and criminal charges. Our solicitors do. A person wouldn’t be shy about consulting a dentist, plumber or accountant depending on need. Why be shy about instructing a free solicitor in the middle of the night?

Even if you haven’t done anything wrong we can help you.

Choosing to have a solicitor doesn’t make you look guilty to the police. Choosing not to have a solicitor might make you a push over in terms of how the police deal with your case.

Why would you choose to go into the alien environment of a police custody suite or interview without the benefit of a trained expert in the field of criminal law?

If you haven’t done anything wrong, you might still struggle to explain yourself in the pressure of a police interview. Our presence and advice will help with that pressure.

We are entirely independent of the police.

Although we have a legal aid contract with the government, we are entirely independent of the police and the courts. You are our client, and the free advice and assistance that we give will be to help you.

…Because it is never a ‘quick chat’, despite what the police say

The only reason you are being interviewed is because the police suspect your involvement in a criminal offence. Any ‘quick chat’ is to investigate that. The outcome of the chat might be a police caution, or a charge for a serious offence, with serious consequences for your future.

We won’t delay your release.

The time that you are detained in the police station is entirely down to the police. During normal office hours, we have a number of solicitors and accredited representatives who are available to attend the police station at short notice to provide you with free advice and assistance.

Out of hours VHS Fletchers operate an on-call rota system where we have four staff members on call at any one time, and the ability to call on more representatives to assist if need be.

If you are arrested further afield then we will ensure that you are represented by a solicitor who can help you immediately without causing delay.

We know that you will want to be released from the police station as soon as possible, and wouldn’t wish to delay that process. The police, on the other hand, often pass an investigation from officer to officer due to changing shifts or due to how they wish to organise themselves. It is likely to be this, and any investigation they are carrying out, that will cause delay.

If you are charged then what happened at the police station is likely to be very important to your case.

If your case comes before the court then your police interview is likely to be important, particularly if you are having a trial. It is likely to help you if you have given thoughtful and considered responses to police questioning having had an opportunity to discuss the evidence first.

It might be that you have chosen not to answer police questions. This could be because the police have insufficient evidence when you are interviewed. If the evidence is then forthcoming, your solicitor could attend court to tell a jury about the account you gave in private consultation where this is the same as the defence you give in court.

We will give you time to think.

In nearly all cases the police will tell us some information about your case in advance. This may include the names of any witnesses and what they say happened. It can include forensic or telephone evidence. We may have the opportunity of viewing CCTV evidence.

Your legal representative will then have an opportunity to speak with you about the information disclosed and take your instructions. You will receive advice about what the evidence shows and whether you ought to give your account to the police.

It is only when you and your solicitor are happy that you are in a position to be interviewed will the interview take place. Should you need to discuss any aspect of your case during interview then you will be able to request that the interview be stopped for a further consultation.

Your solicitor might notice a point of evidence in police interview that you need to provide instructions on. In that case, they can request that the interview be stopped.

Without a solicitor, the police will not provide you with the evidence in advance and you will have to make your decision whether, and how, to answer questions during the interview. In those circumstances, it might be difficult to give your best account.

We can negotiate with the police on your behalf.

A solicitor will be important in negotiations for many reasons following police interview.  You might feel you need medical attention.  Perhaps the police need pointing in the right direction in terms of the investigation.  There might be a compelling need for your release.

It might be argued that there is insufficient evidence to charge you with an offence.  Alternatively, where the police are thinking of charging a serious offence we will have the opportunity to suggest less serious offences.

The police may want to keep you for court to seek a remand into prison custody.  We can suggest bail conditions on your behalf at the police station.

Alternatives to charge might be appropriate such as a police caution or a restorative justice measure. Again, we will argue for this on your behalf.

We are free, we are experts and we are on your side.

Make sure you call us, day or night.

Find you nearest office here.

Alternatively use the contact form below:

All posts by Andrew Wesley/h3>

Derby criminal lawyer John Young has been instructed in cases involving allegations of domestic violence.  The complainants in the cases have not supported the prosecution.  This was indicated at a very early stage.  None of the witnesses made statements when the police were investigating the allegations.  The prosecution try to rely on res gestae evidence.

As a result, the prosecution has sought to rely entirely on hearsay evidence.  In particular, the res gestae exception as preserved by Section 11(4) Criminal Justice Act 2003 has been relied upon.

The test for admitting res gestae evidence

Evidence amounts to res gestae when “the statement was made by a person so emotionally overpowered by an event that the possibility of concoction or distortion can be disregarded”.

This principle has been developed in subsequent case law.  As a result the following points have been established which the court should consider in deciding whether to allow a Prosecution application to admit the evidence:

• Ultimately, the Court has to determine whether the possibility of concoction or distortion can be disregarded;
• The court will need to look at the particular circumstances in which the relevant statement has been made.
• It must be satisfied that that the event was so unusual, startling or dramatic that it was the predominant thought of the witness. Their statement was an instinctive reaction so there was no real opportunity for reasoned reflection.
• The statement must be closely associated with the relevant event.  The court must be sure that the event was still operating to effect the mind of the witness when the statement was made.
• Does the case have particularly features which relate directly to the possibility of concoction or distortion.  This might include evidence of fabrication. The court must be satisfied that there was no such possibility of concoction or distortion.

Any issues such as mistakes in the account given are not matters relevant to admissibility of the evidence but factors the court will consider in deciding what weight to give to such evidence.

There is clear case law that the prosecution should not make an application to admit res gestae to circumvent other statutory hearsay provisions.

What evidential matters will the court look at?

The issue of the timing of the statement will be key to any application.  These will include

• when the victim called the police
• how soon after the incident the victim gave the account said to be res gestae

These are not the only factors that the Court should consider however.   The Court will also need to look at

• whether there is any supporting evidence for example visible injuries
• the victim’s demeanour when first witnesses attend
• their subsequent words and behaviour
• is there an accurate transcription of recorded evidence such as 999 calls, police bodycam footage or CCTV evidence
• where the victim has made more than one statement, the accuracy and consistency of those statements will need careful consideration
• If there has been more than one telephone call or electronic communication have been made by the same person?

Ultimately each case has to be considered on its own facts.

Should the prosecution give notice of an application?

The Criminal Procedure Rules do not require the prosecution to give notice of an application to admit hearsay evidence under the res gestae principles.  Any notice given very much depends on the prosecutor dealing with the particular case.  Where an application is made in advance and refused the case will end at that stage unless there is other admissible evidence to secure a conviction.

Even where a court admits res gestae evidence it must still evaluate that evidence in the usual way.  The prosecution must still proved its case to the required standard.

Exclusion of evidence under section 78 PACE 1984

A defendant has an opportunity to apply to exclude evidence of res gestae.  If a court has admitted the evidence, application can be made under Section 78 of Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.  The court has a discretion to exclude evidence which would otherwise be admissible.

For example, there may be cases where the prosecution have failed to take sufficient steps to ensure a witness’s attendance at court. The prosecution might have purported to tender the prosecution to the defence.  This means that the defendant would be at liberty to call the witness.

Circumstances like these might permit a persuasive argument that the defendant has been denied an opportunity to test the evidence through cross examination of the witness.

An application to admit hearsay evidence should be an application of last resort.  In many cases the prosecution will attempt such an application when a witness might be available to give evidence as to the facts.

In the case of R v Andrews it was stated that a court should “strongly deprecate any attempt in criminal prosecutions to use the doctrine [of res gestae]as a device to avoid calling, when he is available, the maker of the statement”.

Contact a specialist criminal defence solicitor

On behalf of a defendant, a solicitor must make sure that the prosecution does not use a res gestae application to place otherwise inadmissible hearsay evidence before the court.  Solicitors must ensure that the statutory and procedural safeguards are used to ensure a defendant’s right to a fair trial.

A defendant will wish to instruct a solicitor who is alive to all of the issues relating to this evidence and prepared for an argument at short notice against the admissibility of re gestae.

If you face allegations before the court where the decisive evidence is that of an absent witness then contact your nearest office to speak to a specialist criminal defence solicitor.  Alternatively you can use the form below.

Legal aid will often be available to ensure that the defence of your case will be free of charge to you.