Andrew’s client had already been dealt with by another advocate following his guilty plea to his involvement in an insurance fraud where he had pleaded guilty.
Crown Court jury trial for perverting the course of justice
This case was related to the fraud. It was said that our client had destroyed an iPhone because it had incriminating photos showing fraudulent accidents. The phone had been destroyed after our client had been arrested so the police wouldn’t find it.
The only evidence that the prosecution had that the phone existed in the first place, let alone was destroyed, came from an ex-partner. In her statement the incident was dealt with in two or three lines of type so no detail was given at all.
Disclosure was received from the prosecution that showed that she was unhappy with our client following the break up of their relationship. Further evidence obtained showed that following the break up she had made several unwanted visits to our client’s address. On each occasion the police had to be called, and on more than one occasion she had to be taken away by the police. This, and evidence of her hatred for our client seen on screenshots of Messenger conversations, lent support to our client’s argument that she had made up the story to get him into further trouble with the police.
Expert cross-examination of the prosecution witness
The case proceeded to jury trial. The witness attended so gave her evidence in accordance with her statement. Andrew had planned his cross examination so that he concentrated on relevant issues. It was structured to deal with the following areas:
their relationship and how it ended
police involvement at our client’s address
her feelings for our client as seen on the Messenger chat
her delay in reporting the allegations to the police
the detail of the incident bearing in mind the brevity of her statement
The last point was perhaps the most important. When pressed for detail she was unable to provide it or seemed to be making up the detail to provide an answer. This was not lost on the jury.
Andrew’s client gave evidence on his own behalf, and although the experience and some of the questions asked were clearly frustrating, he gave evidence well.
Closing speech directed at the burden of proof
In closing, Andrew’s speech was able to concentrate on the issues that might be troubling the jury most. In particular, there was a lack of supporting evidence that such a phone ever ever existed whereas there was evidence that the witness might be prepared to lie about him.
Our client, of course, had the benefit of the fact that the prosecution had to prove the case so that the jury was sure of his guilt. By a unanimous verdict the jury decided that the prosecution hadn’t done so and he was found ‘not guilty’.
Positive feedback for the service we provide
Although our client remains a serving prisoner and was unable to offer written feedback on the service provided his family did so. His partner felt able to write in these terms
“I couldn’t of asked for a better solicitor – Andrew Wesley and team did a fantastic job representing my partner.”
His mother watched the trial so was able to comment
“couldn’t of asked for better representation thank you so much.”
Crown Court Criminal Legal Aid
Our client benefited from legal aid so in his case it meant that our representation was free of charge. It is only in exceptional cases that legal aid funding will not be available to a defendant. This is because it is unlikely that the income of most defendants be too high for legal aid.
Contact a Nottingham Criminal Defence Solicitor
VHS Fletchers East Midlands Offices
Whether you face a police investigation, Magistrates’ Court trial or Crown Court jury trial you will want to engage a specialist firm to ensure the best possible outcome for you. We provide nationwide advice and representation from our offices across the East Midlands. Contact details for your nearest office can be found here.
Alternatively you can use the form below to send us an enquiry.
Contact
All posts by Andrew Wesley/h3>
Chesterfield Magistrates’ Court
Chesterfield Crime Solicitor Kevin Tomlinson was recently instructed in an unusual case of dangerous driving. His client was alleged to have a driven a tractor dangerously. If convicted, Kevin’s client stood to lose not only his good name but also his licence for a minimum of twelve months.
The allegation of dangerous driving
Kevin’s client, aged 17, had been assisting on a family farm. He drove a tractor on a public highway moving bales of hay. He was driving along a narrow country lane when another vehicle approached from the other direction. A collision occurred causing minor damage to the car. The tractor tipped over onto its side, coming to rest on a dry stone wall.
The police were called to the scene because of the accident. Kevin’s client was eventually summonsed to court for dangerous driving.
Our client denied the offence stating that he had not been driving at speed as alleged. In fact, this was simply an accident due to the nature of the road. The hedges were overgrown so the view of both drivers was restricted. Kevin advised his client that a not guilty plea ought to be entered and the case was adjourned for trial in the Magistrates’ Court.
Expert witness instructed
In order to prepare for the trial Kevin visited the location of the accident. As a result he instructed an expert to visit the scene in order to give his opinion as to the manner of driving. This would be based upon the road layout and how the vehicles ended up after the accident. Following this detailed recreation of the scene the expert felt the standard of driving was not dangerous. He agreed with our client’s view of the incident.
This report allowed Kevin to make detailed submissions to the Crown Prosecution Service. He invited them to reconsider the case against his client. This was because the evidence did not support a charge of dangerous driving.
Although Kevin had to chase the prosecution for an answer, eventually a decision was made that there was a more suitable charge. This was the little known offence of being in control of a vehicle whilst being unable to see the entire road ahead.
This was a suitable charge because the hydraulic front loader attachment used to transport the hay bales, when in the correct position for use on the road, created a blind spot. This problem was aggravated by the driving conditions on this particular road.
The new offence was a far less serious allegation than dangerous driving. It carried a financial penalty and penalty points . Kevin’s client pleaded guilty on a very limited basis that had been agreed by the prosecution. It was accepted by the court.
Absolute discharge ordered
At the sentencing hearing Kevin addressed the Magistrates about the case including personal mitigation of his client. Upon hearing all of this information the court imposed an Absolute Discharge. This meant that the court considered that no punishment was needed. The court also ordered that no Prosecution costs were to be paid.
The Court had to impose 3 penalty points for the offence which was the minimum that could be imposed. For obvious reasons Kevin’s client was delighted with both the outcome and the fact that the case was finally over.
Kevin’s persuasive advocacy skills and tenacious attitude in securing all relevant evidence to assist his client’s case meant an exceptional outcome for his Client. It is clear that he explored every line of enquiry to ensure a result that favoured his client.
Criminal legal aid in the Magistrates’ Court
Our client satisfied both the merits and means test for legal aid which means that the advice and representation provided by Kevin was free of charge to him. The legal aid also paid the costs of instructing the expert witness in the case.
We will always provide you with full advice as to how best to fund your case, including the availability of legal aid.
Contact a Chesterfield Motoring Solicitor
Chesterfield Crime Solicitor Kevin Tomlinson
If you require the advice and representation of an expert motoring solicitor then please contact Kevin at our Chesterfield office on 01246 283000 or email him here. Details of our Chesterfield Office can be found 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 Magistrates’ Court
Nottingham crime solicitor Lauren Fisher represented her client at Nottingham Magistrates’ Court who was charged with assault. After she properly identified that the issue in the case was identification evidence, the prosecution did not manage to secure the evidence that her client was responsible in time for trial. Not guilty verdicts followed.
The allegation
A member of the public had seen two males being assaulted so went to their aid. Both males are drunk and in company with a female. One of the males then becomes aggressive and pushes the female before attempting to hit the person who had been helping them.
Although the male walks away with the female he is followed by the member of the public. He is then seen to kick the female and swing her around by her bag. He calls the police because of his concerns.
When the police arrive, no complaint is made by the female. Lauren’s client is in a group of three males by this time. He is spoken to by the police and taken home, but then received a notification that he had to attend court.
No identification evidence…
Lauren advises him on the statements received. There is not a statement from anybody identifying him as the person who either swung for the member of the public or kicked the female. He enters not guilty pleas. Lauren makes it clear on the case management form that identification will be the issue in the case.
…and still no identification evidence
Despite this, the prosecution serve no additional evidence until the morning of trial. This is in an additional statement from the eye witness stating that he had pointed out the male to the police. There was, however, no corresponding statement from the police officer confirming that if was Lauren’s client who was identified.
The prosecutor had to therefore make an application to adjourn the trial to try and put right this evidential problem. The was opposed by Lauren, bearing in mind the time the Crown had had to secure any evidence. The Magistrates’ decided that it was not in the interests of justice to grant the prosecution the adjournment. As a result the prosecution had no alternative but to offer no evidence. The charges were dismissed and Lauren’s client was found not guilty.
Contact a Nottingham Criminal Law Solicitor
Nottingham crime solicitor Lauren Fisher
Whether you face a police investigation or Magistrates’ or Crown Court proceedings you will wish to instruct a specialist criminal defence lawyer with an eye for detail who will fight your case. This can be particularly important in cases involving identification evidence. The identification might be by eye witnesses, from CCTV or from forensic evidence so the legal approach will be different in each case.
Derby crime solicitor John Young represented a client before Derby Magistrates’ Court. His client had placed himself in a very serious situation because he committed a number of assaults at a working men’s club. This case demonstrates the benefit of an early guilty plea in an appropriate case. John was able to build his mitigation on these pleas to persuade the court that an immediate prison sentence could be avoided.
The allegations
John’s client had been charged with allegations of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and three common assaults. These offences involved four members of the same family, including two vulnerable victims.
The incident developed following an argument between our client’s wife and others in the club. There was some pushing and shoving from both sides of the argument, coupled with some threats. This initial incident appeared to blow over.
Unfortunately, the incident flared up again. No doubt due to the drink consumed, John’s client repeatedly punched the first victim. and then assaulted the others. He was restrained while the police are called. Fortunately, the injuries were relatively minor, but there were other families and young children present who were upset.
Sentencing Guidelines
The offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm can be heard before the Crown Court. This might have been a case that the Magistrates decided ought to be sentenced there because a number of aggravating features were present:
offences in a public place
our client was in drink
children were present and affected
injury was caused
two of the victims were vulnerable
it was a sustained and repeated attack
arguably an intention to cause more serious injury than resulted
As a result, the case could easily have been categorised within the most serious category of offending with a starting point of 18 months in prison if John’s client had sought a trial.
Early Guilty Plea
John’s client faced a choice as to whether he ought to plead guilty or not. He felt aggrieved about how the incident had started. John took the time, however, to take him through the evidence and explain why he was guilty of the offences. Further, John explained to him the benefits of an early guilty plea. This is in terms of both credit (a reduction in sentence) and because it arguably shows remorse for offending.
It is always more difficult to persuade a court to be lenient where a client has been found guilty after a trial.
Mitigation leads to suspended sentence order
Although the offence was serious because of the early guilty plea the court was able to say that the remorse expressed was genuine. The court took account of John’s client’s good work record and settled relationship. He was also the sole breadwinner supporting his wife and child.
In recent times he had had problems with both his health and debt. He had a limited record of convictions and had not appeared before the courts since 2009.
As a result of John’s careful mitigation, his client received a short sentence of eighteen weeks suspended for two years. This was combined with a substantial number of hours of unpaid work and compensation. The case was kept before the Magistrates’ Court.
Contact a Derby criminal law solicitor
Derby crime solicitor John Young
Whether you face a police investigation or proceedings before the Magistrates’ or Crown Court you will want to instruct a criminal defence lawyer that gives you appropriate advice. This will help you secure the best outcome for you, whether that is due to an early guilty plea or by having a trial.
All posts by Andrew Wesley/h3>
Nottingham Magistrates’ Court
Nottingham crime solicitor Lauren Fisher recently represented a client at a Magistrates’ Court trial. The case was an emotive one because it was alleged that he had assaulted his young son by dragging him from one room to another.
Police attended at the address later in the day following a report by the mother that Lauren’s client was preventing her from leaving the address. This informs police that she saw our client drag the child by his feet earlier in the day. The child confirmed this at the time and there was a visible injury.
Young witness support defence account
The child provided a video statement. Although the child was originally a witness for the prosecution, a review of the video evidence showed that the account given was inconsistent with that of the adult witness.
This final account supported what Lauren’s client said about the incident – the child had been playing with a knife so our client intervened, took the knife and dragged the child away by the hand. As a result there was no unlawful assault.
Lauren took the unusual step of serving this interview on the prosecution so that she could invite the Crown to agree the evidence. As an alternative a hearsay application was served because nobody with care of the child was prepared to allow the child to come to court. Lauren shared the view that the child should not need to be present at court.
Prosecution failure to comply with duty of disclosure
The day before the trial the prosecution had the case listed for a Case Management Hearing. The Crown had failed to comply with its duty of disclosure. Agreement is sought to adjourn the trial in the absence of Magistrates but Lauren did not agree. Her client did not wish further delay in the case so the case was adjourned to the trial date.
On the morning of the trial the prosecution still do not have the information it needed so a further application to adjourn is made. Lauren insisted that the prosecution present a proper chronology of how the Crown had dealt with disclosure.
When the Crown presented the chronology it was clear that the reviewing lawyer had requested information that undermined the credibility of the remaining witness. The lawyer had made the request time and again but it had been ignored by the police.
Eventually the police confirmed that there was such information but still did not pass it to the prosecution but it was not available for the trial.
Prosecution adjournment opposed
The prosecution adjournment was sought on the basis of the public interest in a charge of this nature being heard properly. Lauren opposed the adjournment on the following grounds:
there was the likelihood from the outset that the witness was not telling the truth
the child involved confirmed there had been no offence committed
the proceedings were causing problems for her client before the family court
summary justice should mean speedy justice so the prosecution and police should not be allowed to ignore the rules
A not guilty verdict was recorded
The District Judge considered the representations and refused the adjournment request. As a result the prosecution were not in a position to proceed and offered no evidence. A not guilty verdict was entered.
Instruct a criminal law specialist
Nottingham crime solicitor Lauren Fisher
Whether you face police investigation, Magistrates’ Court trial or Crown Court proceedings you will want to instruct a specialist in criminal law who will spend their time trying to secure the best result for you.
If you wish to instruct Nottingham criminal defence solicitor Lauren Fisher then you can telephone her on 0115 9599550 or contact her using the form below.
The only evidence that the prosecution had that the phone existed in the first place, let alone was destroyed, came from an ex-partner. In her statement the incident was dealt with in two or three lines of type so no detail was given at all.
Our client benefited from legal aid so in his case it meant that our representation was free of charge. It is only in exceptional cases that legal aid funding will not be available to a defendant. This is because it is unlikely that the income of most defendants be too high for legal aid.
