All posts by Andrew Wesley/h3>

Nottingham crime solicitor Alex Chapman secured an acquittal for a client facing a charge of driving with excess alcohol.  The trial was heard before Nottingham Magistrates’ Court.

The issue at trial was the correctness of the identification.  A police officer out on patrol saw a vehicle driving with a faulty brake light so the officer drove alongside the vehicle and spoke to the driver.

In response, the driver then drove away around a corner at speed.  This aroused the police officer’s suspicions so he followed the vehicle. By the time he caught up with the vehicle a few seconds later, the vehicle was stationary. There was now nobody in the driver’s seat.

Defending a charge of excess alcohol

One male was stood outside the vehicle.  Two males were sat on the backseat. The police officer believed that he immediately recognised our client, one of the back seat passengers, as the driver of the vehicle. Because of this he asked him to provide a roadside breath test, which he failed.  As a result he was arrested for driving with excess alcohol.

Alex’s client, a Polish national, insisted throughout that the officer had made a mistake.  He claimed that one of the other males had been the driver.

The only issue in the case was the correctness of the identification.  In order to convict the Magistrates would have to be sure that the officer had not made a mistake.  If there was a reasonable doubt as to that, then Alex’s client would be found not guilty.

As a result, Alex directed all of his cross examination to showing that the necessary doubt was present.  The officer admitted that he had spoken to the driver for less than three seconds. He accepted that it was dark at the time.  Although there was street lighting, the driver was sat inside car.  The interior light was not on so the inside of the car was in darkness.

Can you be ‘1 million per cent’ sure?

Alex showed the officer a photograph of his client’s friend.  He had been the other male sat in the backseat at the time of the arrest. The photograph was taken on the night in question. The officer conceded that they looked very similar. He could not be moved, however, on the correctness of the identification.  He continued to maintain that he was “one million percent sure” that Alex’s client had been the driver.

Our client gave evidence along with his friend.  His friend’s evidence was that he had been the driver. He stated that he had been taking the car for a test drive and panicked when he saw the police because he did not have insurance. He acknowledged that he knew he was admitting an offence himself but told the court he could not let his friend be wrongly convicted.

The third male who had been outside the car was the owner of the vehicle. He also attended to give evidence and support our client’s case.

Turnbull Guidelines and Identification

The quality of identification as well as the weight to be placed upon it is governed by the case of R -v- Turnbull.  Alex directed his closing speech to the Magistrates to dealing with these issues.  Although the officer himself was sure of the correctness of his identification, a convincing witness can still be mistaken.  Alex argued that in all of the circumstances the officer could have made a mistake.

This argument was supported by his client’s full cooperation and consistent denials of responsibility.  His account was also corroborated by two other witnesses.

The Magistrates found that despite the police officer’s confidence, they could not be sure of the correctness of the identification.  Alex’s client was found not guilty of excess alcohol.  Because of this he was not subject to the driving disqualification that would have followed a conviction.

Legal aid available

Despite being in work, Alex’s client was able to receive legal aid to ensure his free representation before the Magistrates’ Court.  This was particularly important in his case as he required the assistance of an interpreter.  Had there not been legal aid, he would have had to fund not only the case but interpreter’s fees himself when he gave instructions.

We will always investigate your entitlement to legal aid so that you receive affordable advice.

Contact a Nottingham criminal defence solicitor

If you are under investigation by the police or face court proceedings you will want to instruct an expert.  Call our Nottingham office on 0115 9599550 or contact us using the form below.

If one of our other offices is more convenient then you can find our contact details here.

All posts by Andrew Wesley/h3>

Derby criminal solicitor advocate William Bennett secured a not guilty verdict for his client before Derby Crown Court.  He successfully challenged expert evidence so a jury was unable to convict.

William’s client faced an allegation of possessing a Class A drug with intent to supply.  The drug was cocaine so had he been convicted after trial he faced a likely sentence of four and a half years in prison.

Expert evidence scrutinised

The prosecution case was based almost entirely on the opinions of a police officer because the evidence needed interpreting for the jury.  He had undertaken an ‘expert witness’ course to become an witness who could give expert evidence in drugs cases before the Crown Court.  Cross-examination, however, established that he was far from expert.

In summary, his evidence was that the only explanation for our client to be in possession of approximately 6 grams of cocaine was that he intended to supply it.  He relied on the purity of the drug found as well as a suggestion that cutting agents were found at our client’s place of work.

The purported “expert” was cross-examined robustly by William Bennett, however.   During this detailed questioning the witness conceded that he had personally dealt with seizures of cocaine in powder form on only ten previous occasions.  He further accepted that a “regular user” of cocaine may use up to 2g of cocaine in a weekend.

These concessions undermined the contention that the witness was any form of expert in the supply of cocaine, and supported the reasonable possibility that the drug was for personal use rather than supply.

Not guilty verdict

As a result the jury took only half an hour to find William’s client not guilty of the charge.  Because of this he fell to be sentenced for just possession of the drug.

The case shows the importance of choosing an experienced advocate.  They can scrutinise and challenge effectively the opinions of purported experts so that your best case can be put.  Such a challenge is often particularly important where expert evidence is relied on in drugs cases.

Contact a Criminal Defence Advocate

Legal aid is available for the majority of criminal cases heard before the Crown Court so we will always investigate with you the most affordable way of funding your case.

William Bennett can be contacted on 01332 546818 but alternatively you can email him using the form below.

All posts by Andrew Wesley/h3>

The Hammond Cup Advocacy Competition Final

On 13 April trainee solicitor Elliott Moulster took part in the final of the Hammond Cup.  The event is in its 49th year.  It is an advocacy competition organised by the Junior Lawyers Division of the Nottinghamshire Law Society.  It is open to students, paralegals, trainee solicitors and pupil barristers.

The Facts

The final of the competition involved a mock trial.  The facts were as follows.  Mr James Connway had been accused of assaulting Mr Henry Hill by striking him in the face as he cycled down the A609.  It was alleged that Connway had been driving in a reckless and intimidating manner.  The intimidation had led to the complainant fearing that he would be run off the road.

After this intimidatory driving, the Connway was said to have stopped his car in a lay-by. He then got out of his car and waited to confront the complainant. Anticipating trouble, the complainant said he attempted to avoid any confrontation by simply cycling past. He alleged that as he did so, Connway raised his hand and hit the him in the face fracturing his nose.

After the assault, the complaint took pictures of the defendant’s car for the purpose of identification. The complainant was also assisted by a member of the public, Mr Morrie Kessler, who had witnessed the entire assault. The defendant was said to have simply driven away.  He was subsequently invited to attend a voluntary police station interview.

The Prosecution

Elliott acted on behalf of the prosecution and would be presenting the evidence as set out above.  Unfortunately there were numerous problems with the prosecution case. These included inconsistencies between the prosecution witnesses, many opportunities to challenge their recollection combined with serious problems regarding identification.

The trial itself was conducted in one of the mock court rooms at Nottingham Trent University. As there were four finalists two trials were held.  One finalist acted for the prosecution and one for the defence in each trial. The advocates were judged by members of the legal profession acting as magistrates. The witnesses were played by members of the junior lawyer’s division.

Elliott’s opening speech was perhaps the highlight of his problematic case.  He faced an uphill battle to put his case across through his examination in chief of his difficult witnesses.  The structure of the trial was a test of the advocate’s ability to manage their witnesses and elicit important information.

The Verdict

At the conclusion of the competition, Elliott secured a creditable third place against some very tough competition. Although he was very proud of this achievement, he has vowed to return next year to improve on this position during what will undoubtedly be a special 50^th Anniversary Hammond Cup.

All posts by Andrew Wesley/h3>

Chesterfield Crime Solicitor David Gittins recently represented a young man before Chesterfield Magistrates Court. His client had been charged with the serious offence of section 20 Grievous Bodily Harm or GBH.  It was alleged he had broken the jaw of the complainant.

The sentencing guidelines mean that such an offence will regularly carry a custodial sentence upon conviction.  Furthermore, such cases will often be dealt with before the Crown Court.

In this case, David gave careful consideration to the guidelines and the facts.  As a result he was able to convince the court not only to keep the case but also to impose an alternative to immediate custody.

Free police station advice and representation

Experienced Police Station Representative Rob Lowe first attended Chesterfield Police station with our client.  This was some months before the matter finally came before the court.

Rob was able to provide free legal advice following arrest for grievous bodily harm. This was under the legal aid scheme.  Such advice is not means tested so as a result will always be free of charge.

Having a legal representative in the police station is always important.  Rob was able to secure information from the police about the incident.  As a result the client knew in advance what the allegation was.  Rob took our client’s instructions. He was then able to advise on the strength of the evidence.

The evidence was very strong  as our client was named as the aggressor. Our client accepted that he was guilty of the offence.  He then had a decision to make as to whether he would answer police questions or not.

Rob was able to explain that there is often something to be gained by answering police questions even where a person will accept guilt at court.  In this case it was important that our client explain at the outset why he had acted as he did.  It was an early opportunity for him to say how sorry he felt.  This would help him gain maximum credit on sentence when the case reached court.

Late service of CCTV evidence (again)

When the matter was eventually charged David took over the management of the case to prepared the case for court.  Although the entire incident was covered by CCTV this was not available until the day the case was first in court.

The footage was clear and showed our client punching the victim once to the face.  He was knocked to the ground. Sadly the victim was left with a fractured jaw that needed surgery.  The Prosecution was to argue that the case should be allocated to the Crown Court as the Magistrates’ sentencing powers were insufficient.

Representations on mode of trial and allocation

David was able to argue against that, relying on a number of factors:

• The CCTV footage showed his client breaking up a fight immediately before he threw the punch

• he walked off straight away

• there was a single punch so no follow up

• he was of good character

• he was only 18 at the time of the incident

• his early admission of guilty

The Magistrates were taken through the relevant sentencing guidelines in detail.  As a result, despite prosecution representations, the Magistrates agreed the case could remain in their court.  The case was adjourned in order that a pre-sentence could be obtained from the probation service.

Suspended sentence for Grievous Bodily Harm

When the matter returned to Court a week later the Probation service had prepared a report.  Although prison remained an option, the report concluded that our client’s risk could be managed outside the prison system. As a result, any punishment could properly be within the community.

David’s powerful and reasoned mitigation led to his client receiving a twelve week sentence of imprisonment.  This sentence would be suspended.  This was combined with community elements and compensation.

As a result our client was understandably delighted.  He realised just how close he had come to receiving an immediate prison sentence.

Contact a Chesterfield Criminal Defence Specialist

Without condoning violence, the outcome shows that with the right preparation a court can be persuaded to sentence on the basis of single mistake that will never be repeated.  There is often flexibility within the guidelines to permit a sentence that properly reflects the mitigation available to a client.

However, you will only be able to secure the best result for you in the circumstances if you choose your legal representatives carefully.

If you face a police investigation or court proceedings for an offence such as Grievous Bodily Harm then you can contact David or Rob at our Chesterfield office on 01246 283000.  Alternatively you can use the form below to email your enquiry to us.

All posts by Andrew Wesley/h3>

Nottingham crime solicitor Alex Chapman represented a client at Nottingham Magistrates’ Court. The allegations arose out of an alleged road rage incident.

The case proceeded to trial and after witnesses had been called Alex addressed the Magistrates on the evidence.  Our client was found not guilty.

The Allegation

It was said to be a road rage incident.  The complainant and Alex’s client were said to have pulled over in their vehicles.  They then got out of their cars and confronted one another.

The complainant told the Court that our client punched him twice without provocation. Alex’s client denied punching the complainant in his police interview.  Instead he said that he did have to push him backwards to defend himself.  This was only after the complainant had tried to punch him first.

Command of the evidence allowed focused questions

Alex’s command of the evidence allowed him to cross-examined the complainant in detail.  In particular he asked him about several comments he had made to the police in his statement.  He had not repeated them in court.

For example, he had stated that when he got out of his car his ‘blood was up’.  He accepted that he had been swearing at our client.  The complainant also said that he practised mixed-martial-arts.  A belief had been expressed that he could have ‘wiped the floor’ with our client if he had wanted.

These comments were capable of raising a doubt as to who was the aggressor.  The Magistrates might be suspicious of the complainant’s motives for withholding this information.

The complainant’s wife gave evidence as well.  Under careful cross examination Alex brought out a number of discrepancies.  The effect of this was to cast substantial doubt over the Prosecution case.

Our clients was a victim of road rage

Alex’s client gave evidence. He explained that his wife, mother-in-law and two young children were present at the scene. The Court was told Court that the Complainant had been acting extremely aggressively.  The complainant swung a punch at him first so he had little choice but to push him away.

Our client’s wife also attended to give evidence,  Although extremely nervous, she gave an account entirely consistent with that of her husband.

Burden and standard of proof

In order to convict our client the Magistrates’ had to be sure of his guilt.  He did not have to prove anything.  Alex addressed the Magistrates in his closing speech.  Discrepancies in the Prosecution case were highlighted to the Court.  Alex reminded the bench of the level of aggression expressed by the complainant in his original police statement.

It appeared that the complainant had been unable to contain his own bravado when he had spoken to the police officer.  This revealed the truth of the incident.

In the circumstances Alex’s client had little reason to have punched the complainant without provocation as described.

On considering all of the evidence the Magistrates decided that Alex’s client was not guilty.

Free legal aid funding

Alex’s client was financially eligible for legal aid to ensure his free representation before the Magistrates’ Court.

Contact a Nottingham criminal defence lawyer

If you are under investigation by the police or face court proceedings then you will want to seek expert advice and representation in your case.

The trial here was at Nottingham Magistrates’ Court.  Alex’s client lived in the Chesterfield area. Alex was able to see him at our Chesterfield office to prepare his case.  This prevented a lengthy, expensive and inconvenient journey for him and his family.  We will always seek to prepare your case in the most convenient manner for you.

If you wish to speak to one of our lawyers then please contact your nearest office.  Details are here.

Alternatively you can use the following contact form: