All posts by Andrew Wesley/h3>

Nottingham Crime and Regulatory solicitor Martin Hadley recently represented a landlord in interview relating to an alleged breach of regulations applying to a house in multiple occupation.

Inspection of a House in Multiple Occupation

The landlord had been visited by the local authority inspectors who had found shortcomings in the facilities offered within the property.  Martin’s client had successfully negotiated a period of time to make alterations to the premises to bring them into line with current legislation.

He had then employed a reputable contractor to undertake the works.  He knew the builder personally and had used him for many years.  As a result he believed that the work would be completed to the requested specification and paid for the works to be done.

As a result, the landlord had no reason to suspect that the premises would not fulfil the requirements of the local authority.

Builder’s Failure

Unfortunately a subsequent visit by the inspectors revealed that the works did not fulfil the statutory requirements and the landlord was invited by the Council for an interview at their offices. This was to be a recorded interview.  The purpose was to gather evidence for a potential prosecution.  Our client was to be cautioned at the start of the interview.

Understandably, our client was extremely worried about the interview.  Unfortunately, rather than instruct us immediately he instead instructed an expert to produce a report to show  the council that he had completed the works to the relevant statutory requirements for a house in multiple occupation.  Of course, he hadn’t.

Defence of Reasonable Excuse

Sadly, this expense was not needed.  The report could not address the defence that our client needed to put forward.  Once he received advice

Martin was able to advice him that he would be able to put forward a reasonable excuse for failing to comply with the statutory requirements, that being the instruction and payment of a builder of appropriate skill and experience to undertake the works.

In order to allow our client to budget for his legal fees Martin agreed a fixed fee.  Within this fee, Martin liaised with the local authority to find out the detail of the allegations that would be put in interview, and advised his client prior to interview.  This meant he was able to ensure that his client brought along a bundle of relevant papers to the interview.  The advice continued throughout the interview.

As a result the client was able to raise the necessary defence and support it with documentary evidence.  The council decided to take the matter no further.  No court proceedings were brought.

Contact Martin Hadley

This case illustrates the importance of taking early advice from a specialist lawyer in order to ensure that your case is dealt with efficiently and without incurring unnecessary expense.

If you are a landlord responsible for a house in multiple occupation and receive contact from the local authority please telephone Martin on 0115 9599550 or email him here.  He will be able to provide you with advice on how best to deal with the allegations and agree fees for affordable advice.

All posts by Andrew Wesley/h3>

 

Nottingham crime solicitor Lauren Fisher recently represented a client before Nottingham Magistrates’ Court charged with an assault on his partner.  The allegation was serious in that it was said that there had been a prolonged attack over the course of several hours.

Defence Statement and Unused Material

Lauren’s client accepted that he may have caused her injury but this was during the course of preventing his partner from harming herself.  This was perhaps an unusual defence in an assault trial.

There was an accepted history of self-harm.  On this occasion it would be argued that she was attempting to hurt herself and had to be prevented from jumping out of an upstairs window and running into a road.

Consideration of the instructions given and a review of the disclosure meant that Lauren knew that the police or prosecution was likely to hold unused material that would assist her client’s case.  As a result she drafted a document called a defence statement.  This ensured that she was provided with the additional information needed to establish a prior history of self-harm by the complainant.

Cross Examination Lead to Not Guilty Verdict

It was recognised by Lauren that the case would require careful and sensitive cross examination of her client’s partner.  It was important that the approach taken not antagonise the Magistrates whilst effectively and robustly challenging the account given.  It was likely that the witness would be upset.

During the course of the trial Lauren had to make decisions as to how best to present her client’s case.  A decision was made to agree that a statement of an absent prosecution witness could simply be read.  Although some points potentially harmed her client’s case, other points were of great assistance.

Although witness denied that she was attempting to hurt herself on this occasion, the unused material disclosed raised our client’s alternative explanation as a reasonable possibility.

Ultimately, the approach adopted by Lauren proved to be the correct one.  After careful consideration the Magistrates found her client not guilty of the offence.

Contact Lauren Fisher

If you face court proceedings such as an assault trial and wish to instruct a solicitor that can combine careful preparation, a tactical approach and an ability to tailor cross-examination to the needs of your case then please contact Lauren Fisher on 0115 9599550.

All posts by Andrew Wesley/h3>

Chesterfield Criminal solicitor David Gittins recently successfully defended his client at trial before Chesterfield Magistrates Court.  He had been charged with an offence of burglary with intent to steal.

Blood from David’s client had been found at the point of entry into the property and he had no account to give as he did not remember anything about the incident.

Despite this, David’s meticulous examination of the evidence and knowledge of the law meant that he was able to out forward an argument that allowed the Magistrates’ to find him ‘not guilty’ in less than ten minutes.

The Allegation

The allegation involved staff at a garage leaving premises secured overnight but returning to discover that they had been broken into.  There was damage to a door, window and the roof.  The police discovered that whoever had gained entry had cut their hands as there were bloody hand prints left at the point of entry.  This blood was traced to David’s client through the DNA database.

In interview, following arrest, our client accepted the blood must be his but due to the amount of alcohol he had drunk that night could not recall the incident or why he was there.

The Crown Prosecution Service decided to charge the him on the strength of this evidence.   David immediately identified that whilst there was clear evidence that the Defendant had damaged the doors and entered the property, there was no evidence that suggested an intention to steal.

In fact, several aspects of the evidence would suggest otherwise:

• No untidy search you would expect to find at a burglary
• Nothing within the property had been moved
• No cash register or storage units within the property had tried to be opened
• No evidence that the Defendant had been disturbed and left

Prosecution Refuse Reasonable Suggestion

As a result David correctly advised his client that it was unlikely that the prosecution could prove the offence of burglary with intent.  Evidence was there, however, to prove an allegation of criminal damage.  A plea to this offence was offered but rejected by the prosecution at the first hearing.

Not Guilty in Ten Minutes

No witnesses were required to give evidence at trial.  David’s client decided that he would not give evidence either.  David’s submissions highlighted the weaknesses in the prosecution case in relation to proving intent.  The Magistrates took no time at all to decide that the prosecution had not proved its case.

Further, due to the Crown’s insistence that there be a trial, David’s client escaped prosecution for the criminal damage offence that he would have freely admitted.

It is extremely important that clients instruct solicitors who are prepared to analyse properly evidence and instructions.  David had previously represented the same client with similar results.  At VHS Fletchers we appreciate the need to provide continuity of representation not only in relation to current cases but also in the future.

Funding

Our client had the benefit of legal aid.  This means that our advice and representation of him was free of charge to him.

Contact David Gittins

Should you wish to contact Chesterfield crime solicitor David Gittins, please telephone him at our Chesterfield office 01246 283000 or email him here.

All posts by Andrew Wesley/h3>

Chesterfield crime solicitor David Gittins recently represented a member of the Armed Forces before Chesterfield Magistrates Court caught speeding.

Speeding at 80 mph in a 30 mph Zone

Our client had been charged with speeding having been followed by a police car driving at 80 mph in a 30 mph zone. Whilst being caught speeding and the associated risk of a driving disqualification would worry most people, the impact on this individual, who needed his license to maintain his career, was perhaps greater than most.

David’s client, who was only 19 years old at the time, was driving along the Dronfield bypass towards Sheffield.  He was travelling through road works where the speed was reduced to just 30 mph. With the exception of one car following the defendant, the roads were very quiet and there were no workers in sight. It was only when the police car lights went on that the Defendant realised he had made a terrible mistake.

Our client  was compliant with the police, apologised, and was summonsed to Court. In the interim he had to tell his employers, the British Army, about his error. Whilst the Army were supportive of the Defendant and sent a superior officer to Court to support him, it was clear that if the Defendant lost his license for a substantial period he would also lose his job.

This was because David’s client was a tank divers in the British Army and needed his license to continue doing so. He was due to start operational training early in 2017 before being placed on stand by to be stationed at any war zone around the world the thereafter.

Speed Was Outside the Guidelines

David took instructions at court and explained that when it comes to most driving offences the Court follows set sentencing guidelines. In this case when driving in a 30mph zone the sentencing guidelines only go up to a presumed speed of 60 mph, the defendant’s speed was literally off the chart!

Notwithstanding this, David began taking details for mitigation from him including details of all his training to date, the excellent military service he has undertaken so far, and personal mitigation relating to his non-military life.

In court our client pleaded guilty and David then set about his task of keeping the driving ban, which was inevitable, to the absolute minimum. David addressed the court at length about the naivety of the defendant, his personal mitigation and the impact of losing his driving license for an extended period.

Short Disqualification

After hearing the mitigation the court sentenced the David’s client to a disqualification of just 40 days before imposing financial penalties. He was delighted with the outcome and his Superior Officer confirmed his job would be safe. The Magistrates, understanding the position, even wished him well in his future career.

Many people think they will never need a Criminal Solicitor but this goes to show the impact a solicitor can have even in more minor cases.  Without David his client may not have had the skills to present his case to the court and ensure his promising military career could continue.

Contact David Gittins

If you have any Criminal matters before the Court or Police Station, including road traffic matters, and wish to instruct David please contact his through the Chesterfield Office 01246 283000 or email her here.

All posts by Andrew Wesley/h3>

Nottingham criminal solicitor and regulatory lawyer Martin Hadley represented a landlord client.  He  had been visited by local council Enforcement Officers. They were inspecting homes in multiple occupation to ensure that landlords were abiding by the duties imposed upon them by Section 234 of the Housing Act 2004.

The Management Regulations under this Act are designed to ensure that tenants are provided with safe, good quality housing. The regulations place a heavy burden upon landlords.

Homes in Multiple Occupation

A house in multiple occupation is a property rented out by at least 3 people who are not from 1 ‘household’ (eg a family) but share facilities like the bathroom and kitchen. It’s sometimes called a ‘house share’. You must have a licence if you’re renting out a large HMO .  Further information can be found here.

The client’s premises were visited whilst he was undertaking renovation works.

Unfortunately, however, he had failed to maintain:-

• statutory notices
• fire alarms
• common parts in a safe condition
• hand rails, or
• boundary fences.

Interview Under Caution

The Council officers interviewed Martin’s client under caution and with a recording being made.  Sensibly, our client chose to instruct Martin prior to the interview and he was present to give advice and assistance throughout the interview process.

Martin’s client did not dispute the allegations.  Martin made representations to the council that this was a case that could be dealt with by way of a caution.  Such a warning would be taken into account if there were further allegations in the future and a prosecuting authority had to decide whether to bring court proceedings.

No Prosecution

The client was understandably happy with the outcome of the investigation.  Martin’s approach identified that although the matter was admitted there was an alternative to prosecution and secured the appropriate outcome.

Our client avoided what could have been an expensive day at court as it was likely that he would have had to pay a fine and the local authorities costs for investigating and prosecuting the matter.  In addition he would have received a criminal record.

Contact Martin Hadley

If you receive notice that you are under investigation by the local authority as a landlord with homes in multiple occupation, or for one of the range of offences that you can be prosecuted for then please contact Martin on 0115 9599550 or email him here.