All posts by Andrew Wesley/h3>

VHS Fletchers were recently instructed to act for two of three defendants appearing before Nottingham Crown Court facing trial for serious allegations of aggravated burglary,  knife-point robbery and kidnapping.   One of our clients also faced an additional serious charge of wounding with intent.

Nottingham Crown Court Trial

The nature of the charges was such that if convicted the defendants would have faced sentences of more than ten years in prison.  They were relieved to be found not guilty of all charges.

The case was prepared for trial by Serena Simpson and Siobhan McGuinness from the firm’s Chesterfield and Derby offices.   Although the case was at Nottingham, these offices were more local to our clients.  One of our clients was represented by one of our team of in-house solicitor advocates William Bennett.  Our second client was represented by experienced counsel Stuart Lody from a local specialist chambers.  William had to take the lead on the advocacy as his client was first on the Indictment.

Aggravated Burglary

The trial ran for eight days.

The central issue in the case became the credibility of three prosecution witnesses who were said to be either victims or witnesses to the offending.

Following well prepared and skillful cross examination William and Stuart established that a number of significant lies had been told by tose witnesses.

Cross-examination of Untruthful Witnesses

The cross-examination was based on a through understanding of the statements in the case as well as the material that the prosecution had chosen not to use.  This was made possible because comprehensive and detailed instructions on all aspects of our clients’ cases had been taken at an early stage to prepare for trial, followed by an active pursuit of relevant unused material.

The cross-examination was able to establish that not only were there significant inconsistencies between the accounts given by the eye witnesses but also that the accounts differed from earlier accounts given by the same witnesses.

The prosecution’s main witness in relation to the knife-point robbery was forced to admit that he had lied to the police and even more worryingly that he had lied on oath to the jury about who was present at the time of the alleged robbery.  This  lead the Judge  to direct the Jury to acquit two of the defendants in relation to that particular charge.

Prosecution Witness Revealed as Drug Dealer

In another interesting development one of the witnesses conceded that the main prosecution witness to the wounding allegation did indeed sell cannabis as had been maintained by our clients throughout, a fact that had been denied by the witness in question.

It was a trial that really emphasised the importance of trial by Jury and the robust testing of evidence during the trial process. Anyone who believes that prosecution witnesses always tell the truth would have had their eyes opened by this case.

There was an enormous amount of pressure on the defendants throughout the case, pressure that only lifted after the Jury returned its verdicts. The firm’s overall approach, however, assisted the defendant’s to withstand the pressure that comes with being accused of crimes that they had not committed.

Instruct VHS Fletchers

If you face allegations, whether aggravated burglary  or  a different charge, it will be important to you.  As a result it is important that you instruct solicitors who will ensure that your best case can be put before the court.  If you wish to discuss a case with William or Siobhan please contact them on 01332 546818.  Our Chesterfield office can be contacted on 01246 387999.  Specific or more detailed enquiries can be made here.

All posts by Andrew Wesley/h3>

Nottingham criminal solicitor Nick Walsh recently represented a client who was being prosecuted for disqualified driving on two separate occasions.  Once again the progress of this case illustrates that working within the prescriptive Criminal Procedure Rules can place responsibility for providing evidence firmly with the prosecution.  It is another case that shows the failings of the prosecution to provide this evidence.

Nick’s client had been disqualified from driving following a conviction for dangerous driving in 2008.  The disqualification was subject to the mandatory provision that he remain disqualified from driving until he passed an extended driving test.

He had never taken such a test. The prosecution sought to rely on the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) record to prove the fact of the disqualification. There was no issue that Nick’s client was the person who was disqualified or that he was driving on the occasions alleged.

Disqualified Driving

Nick’s client informed him that a search of his driver record held with the DVLA showed that the disqualification had been removed. Nick carried out an identical search.  The result was a statement that the disqualification had been removed in 2012.

Pro-active Case Management

At his first appearance our client entered not guilty pleas.  Nick completed the case management form and clearly set out that the issue in the case was whether the disqualification had been removed.  Nick followed this with secure email contact suggesting the evidence that can be agreed.

Nick went further and repeated the relevant issue in correspondence – the prosecution would have to prove that his client remained disqualified from driving.

The prosecution did not respond to the request to agree evidence.  As a result Nick asked that the case be listed for a case management hearing where again the relevant evidential issues whereagain highlighted.

Crown Failed to Secure Admissable Evidence

On the day of trial the prosecution produced an email from the DVLA explaining that the reference to ‘removal’ meant removal from the public record only.  The information was not, however, provided in a form that could be placed in evidence before the court. The prosecution applied to the court for an adjournment.  Bearing in mind the history of the case and Nick’s engagement with the case management procedure this application was refused.

The prosecution had had ample time to secure the evidence in an admissable form.  As a result the prosecution offered no evidence and Nick’s client was found not guilty of the two charges of disqualified driving.

Contact Nick Walsh

If you face allegations before the Magistrates’ Court and you wish to instruct and experienced solicitor who is capable of adapting to and taking advantage of the changes in case management then please contact Nick Walsh.  He can be telephoned on 0115 9599550 or email him here.

All posts by Andrew Wesley/h3>

Nottingham criminal solicitor Lauren Fisher secured a not guilty verdict for her client in an unusual case alleging the aiding and abetting of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and a second charge of common assault.

Re-opening Mode of Trial?

On the day of trial the case was listed before a District Judge. Although Magistrates had previously accepted that this could be a case dealt with in the Magistrates’ Court, the Judge took the view that that the case ought to be before the Crown Court.  This was on the basis that the starting point ought to be one of two years after trial based on the sentencing guidelines.  The assault was said to be prolonged, had involved a weapon, and was in a domestic setting so involved a breach of trust.

Lauren argued successfully that it was inappropriate to re-open this decision on the day of trial and the trial proceeded.

Crown Failure Over ABE Interview

The Crown intended to rely on Achieving Best Evidence (ABE) pre-recorded interviews as evidence in chief for the witness. Unfortunately for the witness the prosecution had not applied to the court for this to be allowed, and then failed to ask for permission out of time.

As a result, the witness had to give all of their evidence ‘live’ rather than just be cross-examined.  This benefited Lauren’s client as the witness departed from this original interview account and was able to be cross-examined on these differences in account.

Lauren has also investigated material held by the police and prosecution that did not form part of the case.  This unused material included phone records of calls between Lauren’s client and a co-defendant.  The allegation was that Lauren’s client had telephoned the co-accused to bring them to the address to carry out the assault.

The phone records showed that there was no such call.  Lauren ensured that this fact was admitted by the prosecution and would be before the District Judge as evidence.

Too Many Inconsistencies to Ignore

The cross-examination on the inconsistencies in combination with the lie about the phone call meant that the Judge found Lauren’s defendant not guilty.  In reaching this decision he specifically announced that there were too many large inconsistencies to ignore.

This decision was a relief to Lauren’s client as the co-accused, following conviction, was committed to the Crown Court for sentence with an indication that custody was inevitable.

Contact Lauren Fisher

Should you wish to contact Lauren Fisher in relation to a case at either the police station or Magistrates’ Court involving Actual Bodily Harm or any other charge then please telephone her on 0115 9599550.

All posts by Andrew Wesley/h3>

Nottingham crime solicitor and prison law representative Louise Wright recently attended HMP Stoke Heath to represent one client several at an adjudication hearing, but ended up representing nearly everybody facing an adjudication that day.

Adjudications can have a serious impact upon each prisoner if proved.  There is a risk that additional days will be added onto existing sentences, delaying release.

New Clients at HMP Stoke Heath

Although it is desirable to have advance notice of such hearing to allow preparation in advance, on this day Louise found herself dealing with back to back charges, all being challenged by the prisoners involved.  The allegations spanned a range of alleged offences including:

• assault
• barricading of cells
• failing Mandatory Drugs Testing (MDT)

One prisoner faced 7 separate charges.  Another one was said to have disobeyed a lawful order by refusing to attend for an MDT.  The latter offence is particularly serious if proved as there is a starting point of 34 additional days to any existing sentence.

Random Drug Tests Must be Random

This prisoner had been subject to a MDT less than 4 weeks prior to the charge date.  There was a concern that the prisoner was being subjected to ‘specific targeting’ in breach of the Prison Service Instructions (PSI).  In order to explore this aspect of the case Louise requested a copy of the data relating to the random selection process,  and requested the attendance of the MDT co-ordinator to deal with these key issues in evidence.

Louise had previously prepared a similar case, and was able to rely on her knowledge and argument here to successfully argue on the client’s behalf that the Prison Service was unable to prove that the MDT request was lawful.  ‘Randomness’ is an essential prerequisite prior to submission to a random MDT. The charge was dismissed.

Procedural Irregularities Lead to Dismissal

A different prisoner had attended the MDT Suite but had been unable to provide a sample for testing.  After 3 hours in the suite, he requested to be returned to his cell.  As a result he was placed on report which could have resulted in a potential sentence of 42 additional days.

Louise took full instructions on the entire process from his collection from his cell to the point in which he was placed on report.  As a result, she identified that there had been a breach of standing orders as her client had not been offered food and drink at specific and relevant times throughout the procedure.  The Reporting Officer was questioned on this point and as a result a  successful submission of no case to answer was made,  based on this breach of procedure.  The case was dismissed.

Louise had further successes throughout the day when numerous charges were dismissed for either breaches of procedure or because of gaps in the evidence given by officers.

Prison Officer Don’t Know Procedures

Her day highlighted the fact that many prison officers simply do not know procedure and the effect that this can have on whether a case can be proved.  Unfortunately, without experienced legal representation it may be difficult for prisoners to identify relevant issues and put forward successful defences.

It will be clear to all clients that meet Louise that she is a fervent and passionate supporter of prisoner’s right’s.  Each case she deals with is  prepared meticulously.   The starting point is always whether the prison service has behaved lawfully and within the rules.

Contact Louise Wright

If you or a family member need Louise’s help at HMP Stoke Heath or any other prison or Young Offenders Institution then please telephone her on 0115 9599550, write to her at 111 Carrington Street, Nottingham, NG1 7FE or email her here.

All posts by Andrew Wesley/h3>

Nottingham based in-house counsel Steve Gosnell and senior Crown Court litigator Sarah Lees-Collier worked together to ensure a constructive sentence was imposed on a vulnerable client at Nottingham Crown Court.

Serious Offences

Their client was initially to be sentenced for two allegations of sexual activity with a child. He was 19 at the time of the allegations, but the victim was only 13.

Our client had learning difficulties and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), and in the past had problems with alcohol and drug use.  This combination of factors had led to previous incidents of self-harm.

Steve’s client maintained that they were in a consensual relationship. He accepted advice that this believe did not provide him with a defence and guilty pleas were entered at an early stage of proceedings.

In the meantime our client was charged with an allegation of Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm (ABH).  This was a serious joint attack on an immigrant.  The incident was captured on CCTV.  This showed our client kicking the victim and putting him headlock whilst on ground as part of a sustained group attack.

Again, following advice, he pleaded guilty in the Magistrates’ Court and his case was committed for sentence.  The two others involved were younger than our client.  They were also sentenced but received periods of detention.

Expert Psychologist Report

Sarah correctly identified that the court would benefit from a report dealing with his personal difficulties.  A report was obtained from a psychologist with expertise in dealing with young children and immature adults.

This report was shared with the Probation officer writing the pre-sentence report.  This led to a recommendation of  a suspended sentence including community activities.  Our client had helped himself by voluntarily attending and alcohol treatment program.

Constructive Sentence

Steve made detailed representations about categorisation of both the sexual offences and assault matter.  It was argued that the aggravating features could be properly balanced against our client’s immaturity and the level of his intellectual function.

As a result, the Judge felt able to step away from an immediate custodial sentence and instead suspend sentence with onerous but constructive community elements.  The sentence would operate to protect the public in future by reducing the risk of any repetition of offending.

Contact Steve Gosnell or Sarah Lees-Collier

If you have a case that you wish to discuss with Steve or Sarah then please telephone them on 0115 9599550.  Alternatively you can email Steve here or email Sarah here.