All posts by Andrew Wesley/h3>

As well as representing those being investigated or charged with crimes, Mansfield crime solicitor Tim Haines also prosecutes on behalf of the Environment Agency.  He recently prosecuted several anglers for fishing without a licence.

Although some may view such offending as unimportant, the funds raised from the sale of fishing licences are used to improve fish stocks and promote angling.  The money raised will be spent on dealing with the effects of pollution and disease, as well as eradicating invasive species and improving fish habitats.

Without the necessary licence, an angler can soon find that he has had an expensive day out.

Fines for fishing without a licence

The five Nottinghamshire anglers that were prosecuted were guilty of fishing without a licence.  Between them they had to pay penalties totalling £4,265.

They were caught fishing without a licence during  a routine patrol carried out by Environment Agency bailiffs.  These patrols are carried out to ensure that the future of angling is protected for the vast majority of anglers who fish legally. An annual rod licence is currently only  £30.

Applying for a licence

The Environment Agency has recently simplified the process of applying for a rod licence.  The application can be made online.  Changes have been made to simplify the process including:

• Free licences for junior anglers, up to the age of 17

• The fishing licence will now last for 12 months from the day it is bought.  Previously they expired at the end of March every year

• Anglers now need only one licence to use three rods, rather than the two licences that were needed previously.

Contact us with any enquiries

If you have any queries about such prosecutions then please contact us using the form below.

All posts by Andrew Wesley/h3>

Chesterfield Crime Solicitor David Gittins recently represented a client in difficulties at Chesterfield Magistrates’ Court.  The client had committed an offence in breach of a suspended sentence.

The court would have to be given a good reason not to activate the sentence.

 

 

The Allegation

David’s client had been arrested in relation to two allegations of common assault owing to having been drinking all day.  He had drunk about 20 pints of lager so had not considered the consequences.

His partner who had been with him left the public house.  Unfortunately she had taken an item of sentimental value belonging to the pub landlord.  As a result the landlord understandably followed her and retrieved the item.  Meanwhile, David’s client remained at the pub.

When his partner returned she was suddenly tripped up and landed heavily on the floor.  Without thinking, our client punched the male to the face and a small scuffle began. The scuffle ended after a few moments and the David’s client began talking to others at the scene.

During this time, he lashed out again, punching another male to the face before walking away from the pub.

Offence in breach of a suspended sentence

When charged and before the court David’s client accepted that he was guilty of the charges.  He entered guilty pleas.  Unfortunately, these offences were committed in breach of a suspended sentence imposed three weeks previously.

As a result, the court would immediately consider that the suspended sentence ought to be activated.  A separate sentence would be imposed for the new offences. The likelihood was that this would happen at the first appearance and without reports being prepared.

Mitigation sought to try and avoid the inevitable

David secured information to put before the Court in a bid to convince it not to send his client to prison.  David took detailed personal mitigation from his client. The client was very proud to say that he had undertaken a period of alcohol abstinence and had been dry, albeit for a short period.

His main concern was not for himself but rather his daughter.  He cared for her four nights per week so that his ex-partner was able to work on the evenings he had his daughter.  If his client was sent to prison it was unclear who would provide the necessary case.  His ex-partner may have had to leave her employment because there were no other family members close by to assist.

Additionally any period of imprisonment would have resulted in our client’s  online business closing so staff would be made redundant. His current partner would be as a result unable to maintain payments on their family home.  Customers would lose out as well.

David spoke with the probation service at court.  Therefore he gained information confirming that his client was progressing well on his suspended sentence order.  He had begun to resolve long term issues in his life.

Unjust to activate the suspended sentence

Owing to his detailed preparation, David was able to address the Magistrates at length about the reasons behind the recent offending.  He could provide significant personal mitigation.  David outlined the good progress that his Client was making under his current order.  Much emphasis could also be placed on the impact to others if our client was sent to prison.  This last factor was perhaps the most important in persuading the court it was unjust to activate the prison sentence.

After listening to this extensive mitigation the Magistrates agreed that the suspended sentence should not be activated. Instead they imposed a community order with a stand alone curfew for 12 weeks.

Following the breach of a suspended sentence the court extended the operational period by 6 months.

Our client was relieved not to face a prison sentence and because of that he was delighted with the outcome.

 Contact a Chesterfield Criminal Defence Lawyer

If you find yourself under investigation by the police or face court proceedings and wish to instruct David then please him telephone at our Chesterfield office on 01246 283000.

Alternatively you can contact him using the form below.

All posts by Andrew Wesley/h3>

The issue of pre-charge bail periods has been highlighted in the national press in recent years following the arrest of high profile individuals as part of major criminal investigations such as Operation Yewtree.

Campaign to limit pre-charge bail successful?

The spotlight has been on those individuals placed on Police bail for month after month following arrest whilst investigations were completed into the alleged crimes. The impact of these long delays, which are rarely explained, on the suspect, victims and the administration of Justice cannot be underestimated.  A summary of the campaign to change the procedure can be found here.

As such the Government has attempted to address this in the new Policing and Crime Act 2017. However, while the revised 28 day bail period may be headline grabbing, a closer look shows a complex set of rules which reveal that this limitation is not what it seems.

Police bail in the past

The previous rules for individuals arrested by the police and placed on police bail whilst investigations continue in England and Wales are rather simple and open to abuse or lack of proper consideration. A custody sergeant would base a decision on what they were told by an investigating officer.  He could be easily persuaded that it was necessary and proportionate to impose bail so that the Police could continue to investigate an offence.  Bail could be granted to obtain a decision from the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) to charge.  The bail could be subsequently extended if more time is was requested and justified.

There were no time limits imposed on this, other than where minor offences needing to be charged within 6 months of the commission of the offence.

Bail without limit of time

As a result suspects who have not been convicted of any crime could remain on bail for months at a time, often with bail conditions that limited their private lives.  They would  not know if they were to face criminal prosecution or not.  Thus people’s lives would be put on hold, simply waiting for a return on bail to the police station to find out their fate.  Often, they were simply re-bailed as the investigation was said not to be complete.  The waiting would begin again.

In some cases there may well be justification for such delays. For example, there may a large number of witnesses to find and speak to during a public disturbance, or expert forensic evidence is needed to be sought and tested, or hours of CCTV footage to be considered.

Often, however, any extension was due to officers not completing necessary enquiries due to the level of their workloads, lack of resources, unhelpful shift patterns, holidays and the transfer of cases between officers.  The impact on a suspect or alleged victim could be immeasurable and so needed addressing.

New pre-charge bail rules from 3 April 2017

Due to this need the Policing and Crime Act 2017 has been passed. This brings in new rules on all new arrests from 3^rd April 2017.

The main principal of the new law is that there is a presumption is introduced.  This applies in cases where Police are not in a position to seek a charging decision immediately following a first detention.  In these cases the suspect will be released without bail and contacted in the future if further enquiries deem it necessary.

The legislation acknowledges that a large proportion of cases currently investigated result in a suspect being placed on Police bail whilst further enquiries are made.  Therefore the presumption seems unlikely to apply in many cases and instead the police will continue to place suspects on bail.

28 Day Limit on pre-charge bail

Under the new law the police, where they feel it necessary and proportionate, can impose bail on the suspect to return to the police station in 28 days.  This is substantially shorter than previous pre-charge bail time scales adopted by the police.  It is designed with the hope that the police will continue to investigate the offence.  There will not be the prejudice of substantial delays on the suspect or alleged victim.

Within that 28 day period the police are expected to conclude their enquiries.  They should also obtain a decision as to whether the suspect should be charged. This should be a straightforward obligation on the police that should improve matters for all.

Rules undermining 28 day pre-charge bail limit

The 28 day limit is unfortunately qualified in several ways.  For example, the period is suspended if the case is transferred to the Crown Prosecution Service for a charging decision.  It only restarts when the case is returned from them to the Police.

As a result, if the CPS inform the officer that they will need 3 months to consider the file the suspect will simply have his bail enlarged for that period.  It will not count.  Whilst the Police would still have to consider if it is necessary and proportionate to have the suspect on bail for that period, past experience tells us that they will.  Delays will continue.

Additionally, at the end of any 28 day period the prosecution can advise the officer that further work is required.   The investigating officer can ask a Superintendent to extend the bail period by up to three months.

Time with the CPS doesn’t count

This three months is from the first arrest.  However, it doesn’t include any time that the file has been with the prosecution.  As a result it is likely to be longer.  If at the end of this extended period the investigation is still not concluded the police can apply to a Magistrates’ Court for yet more time.  This process can be repeated. It is unlikely that these applications will be conducted in a transparent manner, and disappointment with bail extension decisions are likely to persist.

Separate rules for designated cases

Applications to extend the length of pre-charge bail times will not be reserved for the most complex and serious cases.  Such cases are deemed Designated Cases for the purposes of the legislation.  These cases are allowed to wait even longer before any extensions to the bail period are sought.

Judicial oversight in bail cases is welcome.  It will ultimately lead to frustration where the threshold for permitting an extension is low.   There is further speculation that police will sidestep the legislation limiting pre-charge bail by treating the suspect as a volunteer.  They are never arrested and not placed on bail, so the limits do not apply.

As a result, the headline grabbing 28 day bail limit will not do what it appears to say on the tin.  Whether it will speed up justice and remove concerns about pre-charge bail times remains to be seen.

Contact a criminal defence lawyer to discuss pre-charge bail concerns

We have always recognised the impact that lengthy periods on police bail can have on our clients.  We would always take the opportunity to make representations as to whether bail should be extended.

Our criminal defence solicitors and accredited representatives have received training in relation to the new provisions.  They know what we need to do to ensure that your interests are protected during the investigation stage.

You can speak to a specialist criminal lawyer at one of our six offices across the East Midlands.  Find your nearest office here.

Alternatively you can contact us using the form below and we will be in touch.

All posts by Andrew Wesley/h3>

Derby criminal solicitor advocate William Bennett recently acted for a client facing sentence for allegations of possessing Class A drugs with intent to supply.  William’s representations helped secure a deferred sentence.

The starting point for sentence for supply of a single Class A drug after a trial is often in the region of four and a half years.  As a result, William’s client was at real risk of a significant prison sentence.

Two types of Class A drug

The case was unusual.  William’s client, a drug addict, had seen a drug dealer hide drugs in a public place.  He was intending to recover them later. Instead, our client stole the drugs. The drugs were both heroin and crack cocaine.  While he admitted that he would have used some of the drugs  himself, he would have sold some to other drug users for profit.

As set out above, the relevant sentencing guidelines would suggest an appropriate starting point of four and a half years.  This would be after trial.  William’s client had entered his guilty plea only on the morning of the trial.  As a result he would be entitled to a very limited reduction in sentence for his guilty plea.

William’s client had, however, used the delays in proceedings to put his life in order.  He had made massive strides towards becoming drug free and turning his life around.  On this occasion his offending was due to him succumbing to temptation in an opportunistic fashion.

Successful argument for a deferred sentence

As a result, William was able to persuade the Learned Judge to take the truly exceptional step of deferring sentence.  The Judge set our client various conditions to keep to prior to a sentencing later this year.

If he keeps to the conditions of his deferred sentence then he can expect, in due course, to receive a sentence that will not involve immediate custody.

The case was a good example of a robust but compassionate Judge being able to take an unusual course having heard cogent and well thought out submissions from the defence advocate in the case of a defendant who had demonstrated through his actions a determination to change his life completely.

Contact a Criminal Defence Lawyer

We provide advice and representation at the police station, Magistrates’ and Crown Courts across the country.  We have six offices based in the East Midlands.  If you face police investigation or criminal proceedings then you can find your local office here.

If you wish to contact William Bennett then please telephone him on 01332 546818 or email him using the form below.

All posts by Andrew Wesley/h3>

Newark criminal solicitor Ian Carter recently represented a client at a special reasons hearing.  The hearing was successful.  His client avoided the usual driving disqualification owing to the shortness of distance driven.

There are very limited circumstances in which a driving disqualification can be avoided for an offence of drink driving.  You might be able to do so if you can show that ‘special reasons’ exist that allow the Magistrates’ to use their discretion not to impose a driving ban.

Factors for a successful Special Reasons argument

In deciding on such an argument, the court will look at the following factors that relate to the offence:

• How the vehicle was driven

• The manner I which it was driven

• The state of the vehicle

• Whether the driver intended to drive any further

• The prevailing road and traffic conditions at the time

• Whether there is any possibility of danger by coming into contact with other road users

• The reason for the vehicle being driven in the first place

You will see that these factors do not relate to the personal circumstances of the offender.

Shortness of Distance Driven

In this case, Ian argued on behalf of his client that a special reason existed owing to the shortness of distance driven.  His client had been seen moving a van that had been parked on The Wharf in Newark from a roadside parking bay across to a car park.

The distance involved was no more than 30 yards.

As Ian is based in Newark he was able to visit the scene without difficulty.  He was also able to speak with a local traffic warden and discuss how the parking in that area was policed.  This was information that was used at the final hearing.

Ian’s client gave evidence to the court that she had moved the vehicle in the early hours to avoid receiving a parking ticket.  Her intention was to collect the vehicle the next day.  Our client’s partner also gave evidence in support of this account.  The agreed police evidence showed the shortness of distance driven and that the journey was concluded.

Ian was able to use court room technology to show the Magistrates’ the area using Google Maps and Street View.  This allowed the court to properly understand that the risks involved in moving the van were low.

Special Reasons found, driving ban avoided

The Magistrates found that there were special reasons not to disqualify.  The evidence given was credible and established the shortness of distance driven.  There was no  bad driving.  Due to the time there were no pedestrians or other vehicles.  This meant there was little risk to others.  The Magistrates were sure that there was no intention to drive further until the following day.  Ian’s client would have been under the legal limit to drive when she collected the vehicle.

As a result, although she was fined, Ian’s client did not receive a driving ban.  If you are due before the court for an offence that could lead to a disqualification then it will help to instruct a solicitor.  You may be entitled to free legal aid for your representation or be able to take advantage of an affordable fixed fee.

Contact a Newark Criminal Solicitor for Newark cases

If you are being investigated by the police or face court proceedings then please contact Newark criminal defence lawyer Ian Carter on  or email him here.

If you face police investigation or criminal proceedings elsewhere then you can find your local office here.