• sliderimage

All posts by Andrew Wesley/h3>

If you are going to Glastonbury, Reading, Leeds or any other festival this summer, please take note!  Because of changes in the law you need to leave your pyrotechnic articles at home!

pyrotechnic articles music festivals qualifying events

Flares banned at festivals

Music festivals are following in the footsteps of football matches as a new law took effect from 3 April 2017.  This banned the use of pyrotechnics at music festivals.  Section 134 of the Policing and Crime Act 2017 states that anyone caught with a “pyrotechnic article” at a “qualifying musical event” in England or Wales could face up to three months in prison and/or a fine.

While many believe that pyrotechnics and flares contribute to the atmosphere of an event, it is difficult to argue with how dangerous they are, particularly in a crowd. The law follows considerable public demand in 2016 because of anecdotes of serious burns and panic attacks brought on by smoke.

The background can be found here.

The risk at festivals such as Glastonbury is obvious because of the amount of heat and smoke that it gave off. From a distance they may look spectacular but it could only be a matter of time before somebody is seriously injured. The law is moving to prevent that because of this.

Pyrotechnic Articles

This is defined as “an article that contains explosive substances, or an explosive mixture of substances, designed to produce heat, light, sound, gas or smoke, or a combination of such effects, through self-sustained exothermic chemical reactions.”  It does not includes matches.  It was, however, specifically designed to include flares, fireworks and smoke bombs.

 Qualifying Music Festival

This is a music festival licensed under the Licencing Act 2003 so if in doubt you can safely assume that all major festivals are included.

There are no sentencing guidelines yet published for this offence because it is new legislation.  It should be noted however that the maximum sentence is identical to that for entering a football ground with a firework unders.2A of The Sporting Events (Control of Alcohol etc.) Act 1985. Offences under that legislation regularly attract custodial sentences and we should expect the courts to react in the same way for the new offence.

If you are not going to a festival or football match it is still legal to possess fireworks, as long as you are over 18.

Effective policing?

There is a difficulty in enforcing the law at a festival compared to a football ground. Police will struggle to enter a festival crowd, particularly near the front.  Also, the crowd isn’t monitored on CCTV as it is at football.  So most arrests for possessing pyrotechnic articles are likely to come at the festival gates, as with drugs.

Contact us for further advice

If you have any queries about the legislation or if you are accused of having pyrotechnic articles at a qualifying event please contact one of our expert criminal law solicitors at your nearest office.   Details can be found here.

Alternatively you can contact us using the form below.

Contact

 

  • sliderimage

All posts by Andrew Wesley/h3>
protest law derbyshire
Chesterfield criminal solicitor Gavin Haigh

Although previously linked with VHS Fletchers as a consultant, we are pleased to announce that Chesterfield crime solicitor and protest law specialist Gavin Haigh is now an employed member of our criminal team.

Gavin prides himself on his meticulous attention to detail.  His robust defence of clients on all matters makes him a formidable advocate and police station representative. Gavin is not shy to raise objections when required and forcefully protect his client’s rights at all times.

Specialist in Protest Law

Gavin has been a qualified solicitor and Duty Solicitor for 12 years and during that period he has has found a particular interest and specialism in the criminal law as it affects protests and marches.

This can involve advice on:

  • the policing of university protests
  • the policing of political protests
  • advising on general animal welfare issues
  • providing advice relating to environmental protests including recent advice relating to anti-fracking protests

Gavin has represented clients interviewed or charged as a result of their alleged activities including anti-fur demonstrations and hunt monitoring. This is an area of law where solicitors are instructed as a result of word of mouth and the trust that is built on previous client representation.  As a result the continued instruction of Gavin is a ringing endorsement of his abilities.

Unique flexible appointments for our clients

Although Gavin will be based in our Chesterfield office, his flexible working arrangements will bring additional benefits to our Derbyshire clients.  Gavin is happy to offer appointments with clients and their witnesses outside normal office hours and outside the office setting.

This flexibility recognises that it is not always possible for people to easily make time away from work commitments to travel to see a solicitor during normal office hours.  This service, along with his willingness to arrange appointments around our clients’ availability (such as in the evening or weekend) will further demonstrate our commitment to put our clients first.  These are arrangement are, of course, in addition to our commitment to provide 24 hour emergency advice and representation.

It may be of significance to existing or potential clients that we are not aware of any other firm of criminal solicitors in Chesterfield offering a similar service.

Attention to detail and robust defence

Gavin prides himself on his meticulous attention to detail.  His robust defence of clients on all matters makes him a formidable advocate and police station representative. Gavin is not shy to raise objections when required and forcefully protect his client’s rights at all times.

Contact Chesterfield Criminal Solicitor Gavin Haigh

If you face a police investigation or court proceedings for any offence and particularly allegations arising out of public protests protest law issues, then you can contact Chesterfield at our Chesterfield office on 01246 283000.  Alternatively you can use the form below to email your enquiry to us.

Contact

  • sliderimage

All posts by Andrew Wesley/h3>

 

 

not guilty trial excess alcohol identification evidence
Nottingham crime solicitor Alex Chapman

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.

Contact

All posts by Andrew Wesley/h3>
expert evidence drugs case derby crime solicitor
Derby criminal solicitor advocate William Bennett

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.

Contact

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

hammond cup advocacy competition
Judges and finalists in the Hammond Cup

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 50th Anniversary Hammond Cup.