All posts by Andrew Wesley/h3>
Trainee solicitor Elliott Moulster
Trainee solicitor Elliott Moulster is through to the final of Nottinghamshire Law Society’s prestigious Hammond Cup advocacy competition following a strong performance in the first round.
The Hammond Cup is an advocacy competition open to any local trainee solicitor, pupil barrister and paralegal. Judges are local practitioners. They look for candidates who show clarity of expression, thoroughness and, of course, persuasiveness in the arguments that they put forward.
49th year of advocacy competition
The competition is in its 49th year so many well known names have taken part in the past. VHS Fletchers and previous firms Varley Hadley Siddall and Fletchers solicitors had a strong tradition of encouraging trainees to take part in the competition.
As a result, several of the staff at VHS Fletchers have taken part. They went on to qualify as criminal defence solicitors. These include Derek Brown, Andrew Wesley, Alex Chapman, David Gittins and Lauren Manuel.
Plea in Mitigation
For the first round, Elliott was asked to present a plea in mitigation for Nelson Muntz, a character from the Simpsons. Poor Nelson found himself before the Court charged with assault by beating.
The exercise was treated like a real Magistrates’ Court hearing and so took place in one of Nottingham Law School’s impressive mock courtrooms. Although the outcome of the sentence was not announced, Elliott clearly mitigated well on behalf of his client.
The argument that he presented was clear, reasoned and sensible. The judges were impressed enough to advance him to the final.
Final to be decided on 13 April 2017
The final takes place at Nottingham Law School on 13th April. Elliott will be tasked with preparing a full mock trial as he faces his fellow finalists. The competition will be strong but we have every faith in him to bring the trophy home!
All posts by Andrew Wesley/h3>
Nottingham crime solicitor Graham Heathcote
Notttingham crime solicitor Graham Heathcote recently represented two clients from the Nottingham Polish community who were charged with similar allegations of disorderly conduct, and one with two allegations of police assault.
Although both were convicted of the public order offence, there were not guilty verdicts for the police assault allegations.
Neither client had been in trouble with the police before. They decided, along with others, to stage an impromptu, unlicensed, boxing match in the street in the Forest Fields area of Nottingham. Unfortunately it all gets out of hand to the extent that a member of the public calls the police.
Three police cars attended the incident. One of the group, represented by another firm of solicitors, was arrested. The police wanted to arrest Graham’s client. The decision to arrest was based on the description of one of those involved. This was given by the eye-witness who called the police.
The police witnesses alleged that Graham’s client backed off and gestured as if he wanted to fight the police. It was then alleged that our client grabbed a female officer in a headlock, taking her to the ground. On the way to the floor it was claimed that he kicked a second officer.
Graham’s client pleaded not guilty to all of his charges. Nick’s client pleaded not guilty to the public order offence. Unfortunately, legal aid was refused for Nick’s client despite his good character and the challenge to police evidence. This is because the charge did not carry a prison sentence.
Legal aid was also initially refused for Graham’s client on the basis of his financial means. Graham pursued a hardship application with the Legal Aid Agency and legal aid was eventually granted to ensure his free representation before the court.
Pro Bono Representation
Unfortunately, the hardship application was not decided until two days before the trial. As a result, little time was left for preparation. Graham felt able, however, to represent the second client without legal aid on a pro-bono, or free, basis to ensure that he had a fair trial. As a result, this client did not have to pay for his representation.
Decisive evidence from cameras
CCTV footage was obtained from the street. Unfortunately the incident was in the distance. It was grainy and not helped by poor lighting. It did not appear to show a great deal of the incident.
Graham took the time to slow the footage down and was able to blow up the footage. If watched frame by frame the camera captured the police jumping on Graham’s client. They then took him to the floor before the incident disappeared from view behind a police car.
This footage alone cast doubt on the truth of the police allegation that Graham’s client was the aggressor and put an officer in a headlock. He would also have seemed to be too far away from other officers to kick any of them.
Graham’s second client had continued to film the incident on his mobile phone once it had gone out of view of the street CCTV. Although the police denied it, one of them was seen on the CCTV taking our client’s phone off him and then returning it. Our client maintained the officer deleted the footage.
Graphic footage retrieved from mobile phone
Nottingham Magistrates’ Court
The footage was able to be retrieved from the phone despite the police attempts to delete it. It showed the confiscating officer slamming our client’s head on the pavement. The footage was so graphic that the court usher was heard to gasp when it was played.
Of course, in part the prosecution case was dependent upon the truthfulness of this officer. This was the same officer who denied the confiscation of the phone and assaulting the client. This evidence was proved to be untrue.
The only type of camera footage missing was police BodyCam footage. Although six police officers in total attended and body cameras are now issued as standard to all front line officers apparently not a single officer was wearing one.
Not guilty of police assault
Although both clients were convicted of the disorderly conduct mater relating to their earlier behaviour, the client charged with police assault was found not guilty of both offences.
Contact a criminal solicitor in Nottingham
With the right representation (in this case free for one client) and preparation (even at short notice) police evidence can be successfully challenged. Here, if convicted, one of our clients was likely to be receive a prison sentence.
Choosing the right criminal lawyer who will properly prepare and present your can make the difference between guilty or not guilty verdicts.
If you are being investigated by the police or face court proceedings then Nottingham criminal defence lawyer Graham Heathcote can be contacted on 0115 9599550 or email him here.
All posts by Andrew Wesley/h3>
Chesterfield Motoring Solicitor Kevin Tomlinson
Kevin’s client was caught driving at 80 mph in an 50 mph speed limit. Kevin’s advocacy skills and ability to use modern technology, enabled the client to keep his driving licence, leaving court with a fine and penalty points.
This case, perhaps better than most, demonstrates the benefits of instructing a local motoring solicitor. Kevin has worked as a criminal defence solicitor in Chesterfield for many years and knows the roads around Chesterfield, including into High Peak, very well.
Benefits of a local Chesterfield Motoring Lawyer
Kevin’s client told him that he had been caught speeding whilst driving on the Snake Pass between Chesterfield and Manchester. Kevin was immediately able to recognise the seriousness of the situation.
Snake Pass winds its way through the High Peak with very limited opportunities to overtake other road users. Drivers are regularly driving at less than the stated 50 mph. The road is regularly used by farm vehicles and haulage companies. This leads to drivers becoming increasingly frustrated during their journeys. There are often accidents which leads the police to monitor the road closely.
Kevin’s client was running late and took an opportunity to overtake another vehicle. In doing so he accelerated to 80 mph and was caught by a Police mobile camera. The client did not dispute the reading and indicated to Kevin his desire to plead guilty at the very first opportunity in order to gain maximum credit and demonstrate his remorse. In retrospect he appreciated the potential danger he created with this manouever.
Our client required his vehicle for work. Kevin had to make his client aware that due to the level of speed the Court would consider imposing a driving ban of up to 56 days.
Use of Click Share Technology to Present Mitigation
Chesterfield Magistrates Court
As a Chesterfield motoring solicitor, Kevin knew that the local Magistrates would also know the road in question. They would be concerned by the driving. The road is extremely long, however, and where the offence took place was potentially important to the sentencing decision.
As a result Kevin located the area of the incident on his laptop. He was show this to the sentencing Magistrates via the Click Share system. He demonstrated that whilst the speed was excessive, it was along one of the straighter parts of the road rather than during the more twisty stretches of the road.
Penalty Points and no driving ban
As a result of his knowledge, Kevin was able to present his client’s case in an extremely effective way. This, in combination with his expert presentation of personal mitigation, led to the Magistrates’ taking a lenient approach. Kevin’s client received a fine and penalty points but no driving ban. This meant that he was able to keep his employment and was understandably delighted with the outcome.
Contact a Chesterfield Motoring Solicitor
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>
Derby crime solicitor Nick Wright
Experienced Derby Crime solicitor Nick Wright recently represented a vulnerable 12 year old client charged with a serious sexual offence involving another child. He appeared before Derby Youth Court.
As a senior solicitor, Nick had the knowledge and ability to be able to deal with such a serious case that would, in the case of an adult, be before the Crown Court.
Case Remained in Derby Youth Court
Nick was able to support an argument that his client’s case remain before the Youth Court. This was likely to mean that the proceedings were less formal and would be less stressful for both his client and any young witnesses who had to attend court.
A case of this sensitivity involved numerous meetings between Nick, the client and his family. It was identified at an early stage that Nick’s client would benefit from an assessment by a child psychologist. The report prepared confirmed that if the matter proceeded to trial Nick’s client would need the benefit of a trained and registered intermediary so that our client would be able to follow proceedings properly and give evidence, if necessary, to the best of his ability.
Child Psychologist and Registered Intermediary Instructed
As the case progressed and the assessments were completed, Nick continued to meet with the family and his client. As Nick was able to explain the evidence to his client, his client’s account began to change. By the end of the process it was clear that he was admitting some but not all of the offending alleged against him.
Nick was able to use his judgement to decide that owing to his client’s vulnerabilities this did not seem like a case where anyone would expect to see his client in custody. As a result, it seemed likely that the prosecution would be prepared to proceed on the basis of what the client accepted.
Agreed Basis of Plea leads to Referral Order
As a result Nick negotiated with the prosecution pleas to a single offence, and on a basis of plea that reflected what his client accepted doing. This was accepted by the prosecution and the District Judge managing the case.
Taking into account the reports obtained during the case, and with input from the Youth Offending Team, the District Judge sitting at Derby Youth Court imposed a Referral Order for the offence. This is an order designed to intervene in a young person’s life to try and ensure that there is no further offending.
Contact a Derby Criminal Solicitor
If you are being investigated by the police or face court proceedings then please contact Derby criminal defence lawyer Nick Wright on 01332 546818 or email him here. If you face proceedings elsewhere then you can find your local office here.
All posts by Andrew Wesley/h3>
Nottingham crime and regulatory solicitor Martin Hadley represented provided advice and representation to a client in police interview, then continued with his case before Nottingham Magistrates’ Court. The decision relating to a ‘no comment’ interview made in the police station influenced the Crown Prosecution Service decision to drop the case before trial.
Arrest for Criminal Damage
Martin’s client was Initially arrested for a criminal damage. Prior to police interview the interviewing office was unable to provide Martin with a great deal of evidence upon which to take instructions and advise his client as to whether he ought to answer questions in interview or not.
‘No Comment’ response to questions
Owing to this lack of evidence, Martin advised his client to respond ‘no comment’ to police questions in interview. His client accepted that advice. He was then placed on police bail to return to the police station. On returning to the police station there was no further police interview. Martin’s client was simply charged with the offence which investigations had revealed was now one of high damage.
Martin represented his client at the first court appearance. He was presented with only a summary of the case. There were no detailed police statements. His client pleaded not guilty and the case was adjourned to trial.
Poor quality CCTV
Despite chasing the CPS, the evidence that the prosecution intended to rely upon, including CCTV of the incident. The footage was of a poor quality, and the remaining evidence was contradictory.
On attending court for the trial, Martin was able to speak with the prosecutor to check that he shared Martin’s view about the state of the evidence. The prosecutor was in agreement that he would be unable to prove the case and offered no evidence. Martin’s client was found not guilty.
Advice led to not guilty verdict
Had Martin’s client not had the benefit of his advice at both the police station and court it was likely that he would have provided the police and prosecution with information or evidence that would have strengthened the case against him and may have left him with a conviction, a punishment from the court and compensation and costs to pay.
Nottingham crime and regulatory solicitor Martin Hadley
This case demonstrates that a specialist criminal defence solicitor from VHS Fletchers can make a difference to the outcome of your case. This is particularly true when we are instructed at the beginning of your case when you have your first police interview.
