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. Her latest offending left her with 19 penalty points on her licence.  In order to ensure the best result for her, Kevin had to ensure that offences from two different court centres were before a single court.

Kevin’s client had received a requisition from a Court in Staffordshire.  This was as a result of new speeding offences. If convicted she would have been over the 12 point penalty limit for keeping her driving license and a ban was possible. Kevin knew that the client would have a strong argument to keep her license as losing it would cause her exceptional hardship.

His client then discovered that she was to have a further case before Derby Magistrates’ Court involving similar offence.

It was important that both cases be listed together.  This was because Kevin could only put forward the same reasons for exceptional hardship once within a three year period.   Kevin managed to delay the case in Staffordshire until the case in Derby had been listed.  He was then able to have both matters listed before the same Magistrates’ Court.

At the point of sentencing Kevin had the opportunity to put forward the exceptional hardship argument on behalf of his client.  This gave her an opportunity to keep her driving license even though she now had 19 penalty points on her driving licence as a result of her guilty pleas.

Exceptional hardship arguments

As all drivers know when you reach 12 penalty points the Court will disqualify you from driving under the totting up procedure. However, if it can be shown that exceptional hardship will result from a disqualification a driver is enabled to keep their license even though they have passed the 12 point penalty limit.

The concept of “exceptional hardship” is not comprehensively 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 can amount to hardship may include:

• Loss of a job resulting in loss of accommodation for others such as children
• An inability to get to any work due to geographical and public transport restrictions
• Loss of other third persons employment due to businesses having to close
• The requirement to take family members to urgent medical appointments when no other transport is available

In this case Kevin argued exceptional hardship before the Magistrates.  His client gave evidence to the court about the difficulties she would face if she lost her licence.  Although the case was initially heard before two Magistrates, they could not agree.  As a result a third Magistrate was brought in so Kevin had to present the case again.

No driving disqualification but 19 penalty points

Fortunately for his client, Kevin was successful in his representations and exceptional hardship was found. The court chose to exercise its discretion not to impose a driving disqualification. This meant the Client could continue driving and was simply ordered to pay financial penalties for these offences.

Kevin’s advocacy skills and ability to see the bigger picture when collecting together cases before making his argument enabled the client to keep his driving licence.

Privately funded cases

For this type of case legal aid was not available.  Instead an agreed fixed fee was agreed in advance of the work being undertaken.  In the event this was arguably a small price to pay in order that our client keep her driving license.

Contact a Chesterfield Motoring Law Solicitor

If you require advice and representation from an expert road traffic law solicitor because you face a driving disqualification then please contact Kevin at our Chesterfield office on 01246 283000 or use the contact form below.  Details of our Chesterfield Office can be found here.  Alternatively you can find your nearest office here.

Kevin can provide you with detailed and affordable advice as to whether you are able to challenge the prosecution evidence relating to your road traffic offence, or how you are likely to be sentenced following a guilty plea.

All posts by Andrew Wesley/h3>

Nottingham crime solicitor Lauren Fisher  pursued an exceptional hardship application for her client to ensure that he had the benefit of legal aid.  She then ensured that his trial was prepared properly with the Crown, once again, failing to secure the evidence that would provide a realistic prospect of conviction.

The circumstances of the offence

Lauren’s client was charged with and allegation of common assault.  A member of the public had reported the assault.  When the police attended at the scene they found the alleged victim who named Lauren’s client as being responsible for an unlawful assault.  He was named and arrested nearby.

In interview, Lauren’s client maintained that he could not remember anything about the night.  Unsurprisingly he was charged to court.

A few days later, his partner made a further statement to the police.  She stated that she had been drunk when she made her original statement.  The incident had also been two-sided and she had not been assaulted.  Due to the fact she was no longer a helpful witness to the prosecution she was tendered to the defence.  This means that Lauren could call her as a witness if she wanted.

Lack of identification evidence

The prosecution had not noticed that without this witness there was no evidence identifying Lauren’s client as the man involved in the incident.  This was the case because the eye witness had not been present when our client was arrested.  As a result of the original statement by our client’s partner there had not been identification procedures.

Once Lauren had identified this she properly put the court and prosecution on notice that identification would be a trial issue.  Had she not put the prosecution on notice it was likely that the prosecution would be granted an adjournment to seek the necessary evidence.

Failure to hold a VIPER procedure

Despite being warned of the problem with the evidence the prosecution and police failed to pursue the VIPER identification evidence.  Lauren’s client confirmed that he would consent to the procedure late in the case.  As a result his details were passed to the officer to make the necessary arrangements.

Despite this, by the trial no attempts had been made to make the arrangements for a video identification parade.  As a result the prosecution took a realistic approach and offered no evidence.

Magistrates’ Court Criminal Legal Aid Exceptional Hardship

Criminal legal aid in the Magistrates’ Court is subject to both a merits and means test.  Firstly, the Legal Aid Agency has to be sure that there are features of the case that mean that legal aid should be granted.  The defendant is also subject to a means test.  There is no contribution, so if the defendant earns over a certain level after deductions then legal aid is not available.

It is possible, however, to make an application to the Legal Aid Agency to ask that legal aid is granted on the basis of exceptional hardship.  This procedure involves the defendant’s solicitor setting out the likely fees to represent them at court and then asking the Agency to say that the expense would be more that they could afford.

In this case, Lauren spent the time with her client assessing that such an application would be worthwhile.  Because of this he was able to have the benefit of free advice and representation at the Magistrates’ Court trial.

Contact a criminal law solicitor in Nottingham

Whether you face a police investigation or proceedings before the Magistrates’ or Crown Court you will want to instruct a specialist criminal defence lawyer.  We will provide you with advice and representation that you can afford.

Please remember that advice and representation in police interview is always free of charge under the legal aid scheme.  This is always true whether you are interviewed while under arrest or as a volunteer, at the police station or another place such as your home.

We will always provide advice as to whether an exceptional hardship application is likely to succeed and advise on the process.

If you want to instruct Lauren Fisher then please telephone her on 0115 9599550 or use the form below.  Alternatively, you can find your nearest office here.

All posts by Andrew Wesley/h3>

Chesterfield Crime Solicitor David Gittins recently used all of his experience to identify a reason why it would be unjust for the Court to activate a Suspended Sentence Order.  His job was made all the more difficult as the new offence was an assault on the same victim.  David was successful in persuading the court that justice could be best served by his client receiving a further opportunity.

Offending during a suspended sentence order

David’s client had been arrested and charged with an allegation of common assault. It was said that whilst in drink he had punched his partner who was trying to get him to leave her car. This was witnessed by others at the scene and resulted in both police and ambulance staff being called.

David’s client was taken to the police station.  He chose not to answer questions in interview, instead providing a “no comment” interview.  He was, unsurprisingly, charged with the offence.  The case was initially listed for trial.  This was because our client initially wished to argue that he was acting in self-defence.  Further analysis of the evidence and legal advice from David meant that he changed his plea to guilty.

Legal advice leads to sensible guilty plea

This guilty plea put David’s client in breach of a suspended sentence.  That offence had also been committed in similar circumstance.  As a result, it appeared highly likely that the court would activate the suspended sentence.

David spent some time with his client so he could obtain any information that could be used in mitigation.  He also took the time to seek information from the probation officer at court.  The officer was able to confirm that his client was progressing well on the community elements that comprised the suspended sentence order.  This information gave our client an opportunity to argue that he ought to be given a further opportunity.  Instead risk was best addressed in the community.

David addressed the District Judge at length about the reasons behind the recent offending.  He offered forward the personal mitigation.  This was linked to  good progress that his client was making with both the probation  and mental health services.

He was able to outline how any period of imprisonment would be detrimental to his client’s rehabilitation because the support and treatment he was currently receiving would not be available in prison.  He was at risk of losing stable accommodation which is so important in an offender’s rehabilitation.

Suspended Sentence Order Allowed to Continue

The District Judge agreed that it would be unjust to activate the suspended sentence because of the detailed mitigation put forward by David. Instead he imposed a further suspended sentence order. The breach had to be marked so the operational period of the original suspended sentence order was extended by two months.

David’s client was obviously delighted with the opportunity to continue to turn his life around and receive treatment within the community.

Criminal Legal Aid Available

 Legal Aid is available for Magistrates’ Court proceedings, although it is dependent on a merits and means test being satisfied.  In this case, David’s client was able to receive legal aid for his representation.  As a result our advice and representation was free of charge to him.

 Contact a Chesterfield Crime Solicitor

Whether you face a police investigation, Magistrates’ Court proceedings or a case before the Crown Court you will wish to instruct a criminal law specialist.  We provide advice and representation nationwide from out offices across the East Midlands.

If you wish to instruct David then please telephone him at our Chesterfield Office on 01246 283000 or use the contact form below.  Our other offices can be found here.

All posts by Andrew Wesley/h3>

Nottingham crime solicitor advocate Andrew Wesley recently represented a client at trial before Nottingham Crown Court.  The allegation was that his client had assaulted a teenager in the street with a stick.  Fortunately, the aftermath of the incident was captured in police bodycam footage so the jury acquitted five minutes after retiring.

Client was a victim of anti-social behaviour

The background to the case was that Andrew’s client and his housemate had been subject to anti-social behaviour for eighteen months prior to this allegation.  This had involved abuse, threats, damage to property and assaults.  Although the police had been involved time and again, they advised our client that there was insufficient evidence to bring any of the culprits to justice.

The day prior to the allegation, both householders had suffered assaults and damage to the fencing of their address.  The problems started again on the night of the allegation.  The fence was damaged again, youths entered their garden, and threats were made.

As well as calling the police, our client’s housemate went onto the street to try and film those involved.  She was hit with a stick so our client had to intervene and pull her back into their house.

The police were called again, but in the meantime a large group had gathered, including the parents of one of the alleged victims of an assault, and further threats were made.

Bodycam Footage captured initial complaint

The crowd dispersed because the police arrived, and our client and his housemate made a complaint.  This was captured on bodycam footage.  Unknown to them, however, one of the youths had turned matters around and claimed that she was the person assaulted by our client.  Two of her friends backed her up in her story.

Andrew’s client elected to have his trial by jury which in this case was a wise choice.  Although there were obvious problems with the prosecution case, a choice had been made to proceed.

Evidence before the jury that could not be challenged

Through careful preparation, Andrew was able to rely on evidence that could not be challenged by the prosecution so helping the jury decide that his client was not guilty.  This included:

• the 999 call of the housemate that showed the witnesses could not have been telling the truth
• the injuries of the complainant were minor so not consistent with the assault described at all
• footage taken by our client showed the mood of the group after the incident to be threatening and abusive
• police bodycam footage captured the first complaints of our client and his housemate as well as their demeanour.

Both our client and his witness gave evidence well.

Although the prosecution witnesses also came over well before the jury, there was a large amount of evidence that at the very least suggested that they were not telling the truth.  The jury took no time at all to come to that conclusion so our client was found not guilty.

Positive client feedback

We have been provided with feedback as to how we dealt with the case from beginning to end.  It is particularly pleasing to be able to read comments such as:

 Further, the praise was not dependent upon the outcome for our client:

Finally, we know the stress that police investigations or court proceedings place on both our clients and other people involved in the case.  Our aim is to try and remove as much of that pressure as possible.

Contact a Criminal Law Specialist

This case was prepared from our Ilkeston office by experienced crime solicitor Chris Evans.  We are the only firm providing advice and representation under the legal aid scheme in Ilkeston.

You can find your nearest office here but we are able to provide our services nationwide.  Alternatively, you can use the form below to contact us.

All posts by Andrew Wesley/h3>

Nottingham prison law specialist Irene Tolley finally secured release for a client at his seventh parole review.  Irene was introduced to the client at HMP Ranby through recommendations by other inmates in time for the final review.  Although he had representation during previous reviews, these had been without success.

Twelve years over tariff

Irene’s client was serving an automatic life sentence.  He had been sentenced in 2001 and his tariff was set at five years less the time he had served on remand. His tariff had expired in April 2005 therefore by the time Irene became involved he was more than twelve years over tariff.  He had served sixteen years because of problems with his sentence progression.

Irene receiving instructions then submitted an application for an oral hearing and this application was granted.  The panel chair was a retired Crown Court judge and Queen’s Counsel.

Bearing in mind the passage of time Irene’s application on behalf of her client was that he be immediately released.  Unfortunately, nobody involved in her  client’s assessment was supportive of such a suggestion.  This included the offender supervisor, offender manager and prison psychologist.

Although the application had been prepared and submitted in good time, it had not been passed onto the panel chair or offender manager.    Directions had been given previously for the offender manager to provide a full risk management plan but this plan had not been prepared.  This made matters difficult for the panel because they would have to consider release conditions.

Strong and persuasive arguments

Irene put forward strong and persuasive arguments on behalf of her client in order to try and secure his release:

• he  had simply been in custody too long
• he had been let down by the prison system with regard to courses and as a result three years were wasted in terms or progression to release
• there was a real concern that if open conditions were recommended then he may not have a risk assessment within a three month period at that establishment
• his current offender manager would not be able to carry out an assessment because his involvement was to cease
• there was no information as to who the new offender manager would be or when they would be allocated
• as a result there was a realistic possibility that his case would not have moved on any further by the next review date in terms of risk assessment

Despite the fact that there was no risk assessment, the panel were persuaded that Irene’s client should be released into supervised accommodation with only three additional licence conditions.

Irene’s client will no doubt be very pleased with the outcome of the this hearing, and will finally be able to continue with his rehabilitation within the community.

Instruct a prison law specialist

This case demonstrates that having the benefit of a specialist prison law adviser can persuade bodies such as the Parole Board to make decisions that are somewhat unusual.

Contact Nottingham prison law specialist Irene Tolley if you, a family member or friend need the benefit of her advice.  She can be contacted by telephone on 0115 9599550 or by post at the Nottingham office.  Alternatively you can use the form below.