All posts by Andrew Wesley/h3>

Chesterfield Crime solicitor David Gittins recently defended a client before Chesterfield Magistrates’ Court charged with an allegation of domestic assault.  Police Bodycam footage was of key importance.

David’s client was found not guilty following a full hearing of the evidence at trial.

David first met his in Chesterfield Court cells. He had been refused bail by the Police.  David made a successful bail application.  As we offer continuity of representation, David then continued to deal with the case on behalf of his client.

Client of Good Character

This involved several meetings with him at our Chesterfield office to prepare the case. David’s client had never been in trouble with the police or court before.   The potential effects of a conviction for this offence could be far reaching.

The Allegation

It was said that David’s client and partner had argued following a family meal. His partner demanded that he spend the night on the sofa.  It was said that in response to that he grabbed his partner by the throat and hit her, causing scratches to her neck and a cut to her lip.

A neighbour gave evidence that she had heard the incident through the wall and had spoken to the complainant before calling the police.

Self-Defence Argument

Our client provided a different version of events.  He said that he had been grabbed by his partner and hit to the face.  He had pushed her away and taken hold of her to prevent further attack.  He maintained that his actions were reasonable.  He acted in self-defence.

David’s client entered a not guilty plea and the case was listed for trial.   David asked the prosecution to serve additional evidence before the trial including body warn camera (BodyCam) footage from the police/  This turned out to be crucial to the defence.

Crucial Police BodyCam Footage

On behalf of his client, David had the complainant confirm parts of her evidence again.  Importantly she stated that as she didn’t strike her partner, he had no injuries.

David was then able to show the complainant and the Court the BodyCam footage from the police who attended the incident. Recorded comments and injuries meant that the complainant had to change her account.  Further inconsistencies in her account were then brought out by questioning.

Although the neighbour gave the same account that she had originally given to the police, David was easily able to establish that she could not give evidence as to what had actually happened on the other side of the wall.

Finally, David made sure that the prosecution read into evidence the agreed statement from a police officer confirming that his client has a fresh injury to his eye when first seen by the police.

David’s client then gave evidence on his own behalf.

Closing Speech

David was able to rely on the burden and standard of proof when speaking on behalf of his client.  The BodyCam footage and his client’s injuries undermined the account of the complainant.  In order to find his client guilty the Magistrates had to be sure that he used unlawful force.

The Magistrates returned their verdict after a short while. They could not be sure that the complainant’s account was true and as a result found David’s client not guilty.  He kept his good name.

Contact Us

Defendants in domestic violence cases might feel that it is difficult to put their case across.  This is why there will be a benefit in instructing a diligent and focused specialist criminal solicitor who will review all of the evidence in detail.

In this case, an analysis of what the complainant had said as recorded on the police Bodycam allowed David to demonstrate that the complainant might not be telling the truth.

If you wish David to represent you at either the police station or Magistrates’ Court please telephone 01246 28300 or email him here.

All posts by Andrew Wesley/h3>

Nottingham Solicitor Advocate Phil Plant secured a conditional discharge for his client who was originally charged with affray before Nottingham Crown Court.  Two co -accused faced the affray charge and charges of assault occasioning actual bodily harm.  The case was prepared by senior crown litigator Caine Ward.

Late Night Incident in Drink

The incident took place in a fast food restaurant in Nottingham.  Both sides of the incident had been drinking after a night out in the city centre.  Phil’s client was with his parents and his uncle.

In the restaurant words were exchanged with the co-accused.  The CCTV obtained by Phil showed that his client had been involved in the early part of the incident.

As a result of his behaviour he was manhandled out of the shop by security staff.

In the meantime a melee broke out involving the co-defendants.   They assaulted our client’s father by punching him.  This led to him being knocked out by one co-accused and then whilst on the floor being stamped on by the other co-accused.

Phil’s client was still being restrained at his point, but made threats towards the co-defendants.

Plea to a Lesser Charge

The Crown accepted a plea from Phil’s client to an offence under s4 Public Order Act.  Phil negotiated this plea on the basis that our client had offered the threats after his father had been knocked out.

In relation to the incident as a whole, thankfully our client’s father made a full recovery.

Conditional Discharge Imposed

Following argument persuasive mitigation from Phil, the Recorder  was prepared to deal with his client separately from the two co-accused, ending the ordeal of court proceedings.  He felt able to take the very unusual step of imposing a 12 month conditional discharge.  If his client is in further trouble during the period of the discharge he can be re-sentenced for the original allegation and any fresh offence.  Otherwise the conviction is ‘spent’.

Contact Us

Often the prosecution and court need persuading to look at alleged offence realistically and sympathetically.  As a result you will need a persuasive specialist advocate.  If you wish to instruct us or seek initial advice then please telephone Phil or Caine on 0115 9599550 or email them here.

All posts by Andrew Wesley/h3>

Nottingham criminal solicitor and Higher Courts Advocate Phil Plant recently persuaded a Nottingham Crown Court judge to suspend sentence in a case of distraction burglary prepared by Crown Court litigator Siobhan McGuinness.

Our client faced a serious allegation of burglary.  Although she had pleaded guilty

to the offence at the first Crown Court hearing, there had been some delay.  She had been part of a group of people travelling in a car.  Upon coming to a remote farmhouse the car appeared to break down.

Distraction Burglary

The elderly occupier of the address came out and offered assistance.  She allowed the male driver into her house.  Our client then arrived at the door.  She was pregnant at the time, and asked for a glass of water.  She then complained about the water and asked for a second glass.  This distraction allowed the male complainant to remove a laptop from the address.

Phil’s client was linked to the address by a fingerprint recovered from the glass she had used.

Distraction burglaries of this type are likely to be treated very seriously by the courts.  There is an inevitable betrayal of trust, the victim if often vulnerable and there is always a meeting between burglar and victim.

Two Year Sentence Suspended

Phil properly recognised these aggravating features in his address to the judge.  He also properly set out what mitigation was available to her.  The most significant of this was that between the arrest and her charge his client had given birth to her child, and this fact had made her re-evaluate her priorities.

His Honour Judge Sampson was persuaded to impose a suspended sentence for this distraction burglary.  Having taken the view that the offence was worth 3 years after a trial  the Learned Judge was prepared to suspend a 2 year prison sentence for 24 months.

Contact Us

It is important that you instruct an advocate who is able to judge the likely effect of plea and mitigation on your eventual sentence.  If you wish to speak to Phil about a case then please telephone him on 0115 9599550 or Siobhan on 01332 546818. Alternatively you can email them here.

All posts by Andrew Wesley/h3>

Nottingham crime solicitor advocate Phil Plant and senior crown court litigator Ruth Campbell recently prepared a case for sentence before Derby Crown Court, securing a constructive rather than punitive sentence despite the published guidelines for possession with intent to supply Class A drugs.

Possession with Intent to Supply

Our client had been charged with possession with intent to supply both heroin and crack cocaine. The police had carried out a raid on her house and found significant quantities of both types of drug.  The crack cocaine had been concealed about her person.  The quantities recovered were consistent with the supply of both of the drugs.  Our client had a long history of heroin use.

In interview our client had chosen to make no reply to questions put to her, as was her right.  Unfortunately, she then made matters worse for herself by failing to attend her first court hearing. Fortunately, she was allowed to remain on bail despite this.

Basis of Plea

Once her cases reached the Crown Court Phil discussed with the prosecution the possibility of a compromise.  His client would plead guilty to possession with intent to supply crack cocaine but would offer a plea of simple possession of the heroin.  The sale of the crack cocaine was said to be to fund her heroin addiction.  This compromise is called a ‘basis of plea’.

This compromise might prove significant upon sentence as it would be an aggravating feature were our client to be found guilty of supplying to different drugs.

The prosecution accepted the pleas on offer.  Despite a guideline starting point of 3 years even taking into account the plea Phil successfully argued that the case should be adjourned for a pre-sentence report to be prepared by the Probation service to see whether any realistic alternatives to custody should be imposed.

Constructive Sentence

At sentence,  the Judge was persuaded to impose a suspended prison sentence with community requirements despite the guidelines.  This was a far more constructive disposal and will give our client an opportunity. with support, to put her drug use behind her.

Contact Us

Custody may often not be as unavoidable as it might seem.  With careful preparation and the right approach a client may improve their chances of being dealt with leniently.  If you wish to discuss a case with Phil then please telephone him on 0115 9599550.  To speak to Ruth please telephone her on 01623 675816.  You can also email your enquiries here.

All posts by Andrew Wesley/h3>

Nottingham crime solicitor Nick Walsh was recently instructed by a client facing an allegation of failing to provide a specimen of breath for analysis and police assault.  Ultimately Nick persuaded the prosecution not to proceed with the charges.

Medical Defence to Failing to Provide

Nick’s client had a history of mental illness.   The account given by the arresting officers showed that his behaviour was bizarre in the extreme.  From the outset, Nick correctly identified that the relevant issue would be whether, bearing in mind the nature of his illness, he was capable of understanding the request made of him and the likely consequences of a refusal.

A psychiatric report was obtained that expressed the view that our client was very ill during his time in police custody.  The  paramedic who examined him at the police station said that his behaviour was a result of mental illness and not the effect of drink or drugs.

Prosecution Determined to Proceed

Despite this information the prosecution were determined to proceed with the prosecution.  Requests to the prosecution eventually produced the full intoxilyser procedure forms.  From those, it became apparent that the officer conducting the procedure had accepted that Nick’s client had a medical reason for his failing to provide a specimen of breath.  It was he who had gone on to arrange for our client to be medically assessed as to whether he was unfit.

It was this decision that had led to the assessment that concluded he was not affected by alcohol, rather illness.

In the Public Interest?

Nick persisted with his representations that it was not in the public interest to persist with the prosecution.  In any event the prosecution would not be in a position to prove the case.  Eventually, having had the case listed for a case management hearing, the prosecution were persuaded to withdraw the charges.  The prosecution was at an end.

Contact Nick Walsh

If you face an allegation at the police station or Magistrates’ Court then please do not hesitate to contact Nick Walsh on 0115 9599550 or email him here.  You will no doubt benefit from his careful analysis of the issues in your case and his persistence in dealing with the prosecution.