All posts by Andrew Wesley/h3>
Nottingham criminal solicitor advocate Phil Plant
Nottingham solicitor advocate Phil Plant recently represented a client before Nottingham Crown Court who face the serious allegation of inflicting Grievous Bodily Harm with Intent (Section 18 GBH). After trial, he was found not guilty.
Assault Following False Allegations
Phil’s client was said, along with a co-accused, to have taken part in a brutal revenge attack on the victim following false allegations that he had assaulted a female friend.
The victim had been so badly beaten that was so badly beaten he suffered a displaced fractured of the jaw. It also led to him suffering almost total amnesia and his recollection was based on harrowing flashbacks of the incident that continued to haunt him.
Lesser Charge Instead of Section 18 GBH?
Upon conviction, our client could expect a substantial period of imprisonment. The prosecution had told us that it would accept a plea to the lesser charge of inflicting GBH (Section 20 rather than section 18 GBH). Phil’s client insisted that he was not involved at all, so chose to have his trial.
The victim asserted that the the complainant named both of the accused as the perpetrators of the attack. Phil’s client did not accept that he was part of the attack, although he did witness it.
When questioned by Phil the complainant conceded that his client was not the kind of man who would behave in the manner he described, conceding perhaps that it appeared unlikely that his client did indeed take part in the attack.
The other defendant had given given different accounts during the course of the investigation. At trial he maintained that it was our client who had carried out the assault.
Not Guilty Verdict
Having heard evidence tested through Phil’s expert cross-examination the jury found his client not guilty. The other accused, separately represented, was convicted of the original offence and received a significant custodial sentence of several years.
Contact Phil Plant
If you wish to instruct Phil to represent you at trial before Nottingham Crown Court then please contact him on 0115 9599550 or email him here.
All posts by Andrew Wesley/h3>
Nottingham solicitor advocate Nick Walsh recently dealt with a sentence before Nottingham Crown Court. Careful mitigation drew distinctions between his client and two others to ensure that he received a suspended sentence rather than an immediate prison sentence.
Struck With a Bottle
Nick’s client, along with others, had pleaded guilty to inflicting grievous bodily harm. He was one of five people who had attended a house party. Everyone present was drunk.
The behaviour of one of the group led to concerns from the victim that a female party-goer was to be assaulted. As a result, the victim took hold of the aggressor. He was then set upon by the group. During the assault he was punched and kicked and struck over the head with a bottle.
As a result of the assault he received a fractured jaw and had to undergo immediate surgery. He was discharged from hospital two days later.
Negotiation of Lesser Charge
Only three of the five had been charged with offences. They had originally been charged inflicting grievous bodily harm with intent to case really serious injury. Negotiation at the Plea and Trial Preparation Hearing persuaded the prosecution to accept pleas to the lesser charge.
The probation service had prepared a pre-sentence report. In that report, Nick’s client had accepted that he was the person who had struck the victim with the bottle.
One interpretation of the Guidelines would have placed this offence as one of greater harm, it being a sustained assault, and higher culpability as a weapon was used in the attack. Had that been the case, the starting point for sentence for a ‘Category 1’ offence would have been three years imprisonment.
Further negotiation with the prosecutor and detailed representations to the Judge allowed the case to be treated as falling within Category 2 of the guideline. This was due to the absence of pre-meditation. As a result there was now a starting point of 18 months custody.
Careful Mitigation at Nottingham Crown Court
Although 17 at the time of the incident, Nick’s client was 18 at the point of sentence. Nick was able to rely upon his client’s youth and more importantly what he had achieved in the ten months since the incident. He had found work and broken off ties with his co-accused. He also had compelling mitigation relating to his upbringing.
As a result, although it was Nick’s client who used a weapon in the incident the Judge at Nottingham Crown Court was able to distinguish between him and the others in the dock. He received a sentence of 8 months suspended for 18 months with community requirements. His co accused, however, each received sentences 14 months’ immediate custody.
Contact Nick Walsh
Nick deals with clients at the police station, Magistrates’ and Crown Courts. As a result he can provide you with continuity of representation. If you wish to instruct Nick in any case then please telephone him on 0115 9599550 or email him here.
All posts by Andrew Wesley/h3>
Mansfield crime solicitor Melanie Hoffman successfully argued special reasons so that her client did not receive a penalty or disqualification despite driving while over the legal limit.
Facts of the Case
Mel’s client had driven to his local pub to enjoy an evening with a friend. This was a regular arrangement and he had every intention of walking home.
Instead of having a pleasant evening, he and his friend were assaulted in the pub by a group of strangers who entered the pub shortly before closing time. They were heavily in drink and intent on causing further trouble and threats were made.
Upon leaving the pub, Mel’s client and his friend were again confronted by members of this group, who were by now brandishing tools as weapons. He and his friend sought sanctuary in the works van, only for this to come under attack.
Some of the group were able to open the passenger side door with a view to pulling the passenger from the van. Mel’s client decided that despite having drunk alcohol, his only option was to drive the van off the pub car park. He genuinely feared for his own and his friend’s safety.
Once on the road the van was pursued by the group who were running after the group and also going to vehicles. As a result, our client had no alternative but to continued to drive in the direction of the local police station. Whilst doing so he called the police via his hands free kit to explain the situation. The police station was unmanned so that the he needed to continue to drive, ensuring that he kept in constant contact with the Police as he did so.
Eventually the pursuit came to an end and he was able to pull over and park the van, knowing that the Police were in attendance to assist. The Police chose to carry out a breath test, which the Defendant failed. He was ultimately charged with a drink drive offence, despite what might have amounted to compelling public interest reasons to the contrary.
Special Reasons Identified
Upon taking instructions from her client, Mel correctly advised him that a plea of guilty would have to be entered as he had driven on a public road whilst over the legal limit to do. The Crown would not consider withdrawing proceedings. He would be able, however, to put a special reasons argument before the court to seek to avoid punishment and a driving disqualification that would normally follow such a plea.
He would argue that he had only driven because he genuinely feared for the safety of himself and his friend, and a sober individual would have done the same in these circumstances.
To ensure that her client placed the best argument before the Magistrates, Mel:
took detailed statements from the friend and pub licensee
ensured that this evidence was agreed by the prosecution
played the 999 call made by her client to the court
At the court hearing, Mel’s client gave evidence on his own behalf, and by the conclusion of the case there could be no doubt that the facts were as he described.
The Magistrates found that special reasons did apply in this case. He received an absolute discharge and no driving disqualification. There was no endorsement of the matter on his driving record and he did not have to pay any prosecution costs.
Contact Melanie Hoffman
It may be that if you are arrested for drinking and driving then you are interviewed by the police. If so, it is vital that you seek our free and independent legal advice at that stage to make sure that you provide the detail that might provide you with a defence or special reasons to avoid a disqualification.
Mel is currently on maternity leave, but if you are being investigated or face court proceedings then please contact her colleagues Tim Haines or Emma Cornel on 01623 675816 or use the contact form below:
Contact
All posts by Andrew Wesley/h3>
Mansfield Crime Solicitor Tim Haines complied with court directions in a ‘drug driving’ case which meant that the Crown were forced to drop a case on the day of trial.
Drug Driving
His client was charged with ‘drug driving’. The prosecution case was that he had been driving with nearly eight times the legal level of the drug amphetamine in his system. The Defendant disputed this evidence. He was not helped in this because he had managed to misplace his blood sample provided by the police to allow his own expert analysis.
The obligation is on a client and his legal representative to complete a pre-trial review form each and every time a case is adjourned to trial in the Magistrates’ Court. In this case, Tim completed the form in great detail. I was made abundantly clear that the expert evidence relied upon by the prosecution could not be agreed as the findings were disputed.
Expert’s Findings Challenged
Perhaps more importantly, because the findings were challenged, the client directly challenged the prosecution to prove that the sample analysed was the correct one. The Crown was told that it would have to prove each evidential link between the sample being taken and analysed.
Despite this early identification of the relevant issues the prosecution failed to obtain and serve this evidence. As a result, on the day of the trial Tim made representations to the Magistrates that the prosecution case was fundamentally flawed. The Crown could not prove to the Court that the sample analysed by its expert was that taken from the Defendant after arrest.
Not an ‘ambush’ defence
An attempt was made by the prosecution to suggest that it had been ‘ambushed’. It was argued that the issue as to lack of continuity had not been raised by Tim sufficiently in advance of the trial. This contention could easily be refuted by reference to the case management form completed some 6 months earlier. This made it clear what the evidential issues were.
The Magistrates understandably refused the Crown application to adjourn the case to a fresh trial date. They were able to point out that the completed pre-trial form was fully and accurately completed. As a result the Crown had had 6 months to respond to the evidential challenge raised by the Defence. The Crown were left with no option but to offer no evidence against the Tim’s client and the charge was dismissed.
Tim’s client left court without conviction and what would have been a mandatory driving disqualification of at least 12 months. He was able to keep his employment, which would have been jeopardised if not lost altogether if he had been disqualified from driving.
Contact Tim Haines
Road traffic cases may seem straightforward but can be complex. If you wish to speak to Tim about a police investigation or court case for drug driving or any other matter please telephone him on 01623 675816 or email him here.
All posts by Andrew Wesley/h3>
Chesterfield crime solicitor David Gittins recently defended a juvenile before Chesterfield Youth Court. His client was charged with the serious offence of robbery based on a Facebook identification.
Notwithstanding a positive identification of his client by the victim, David’s meticulous preparation of the case led to successful representations to the prosecution. These resulted in the Crown discontinued the case several weeks before the trial was due to start.
Continuity of Representation
David’s client had the advantage of having continuity of representation. David provided advice and assistance to the client at Chesterfield Police station. He then continued with this representation at court.
In brief the complainant told police that the client and another male had got out of a car, pushed and kicked him to the floor, and stole a packet of cigarettes. The complainant provided a description of those involved to the police. He then searched Facebook to see if he could recognise those involved. During this process he thought he recognised David’s client as one of the males involved.
Full Alibi Provided to Police
David attended the Police station and advised the client who denied the offence. He stated that he was not there. He went on to provide a full alibi. This account was provided to the Police in the form of a written statement including the names of several witnesses who could support the client’s account. One of the witnesses was a social worker. This was an attempt to ensure that the police conducted a proper investigation.
To David’s surprise, Instead of speaking to these witnesses the police focused time and money on conducting a Video Identification Procedure (VIPER). Perhaps unsurprisingly, his client was identified again by the same witness as having been involved in the offence.
As a result, he was charged with the offence of robbery on the basis of the Facebook Identification without the other witnesses being spoken to by the police. This was despite David’s representations to the contrary.
Early Preparation
David kept conduct of the matter when the case reached Chesterfield Youth Court. He immediately set about to obtain the evidence to support the client’s alibi and undermine the identification evidence. David took statements from defence witnesses including social workers and family members, as well as contacting other agencies to prove where the his client was at specific times.
David also correctly identified that there were obvious differences between the description of the robber given by the complainant and David’s client.
Having gathered this alibi evidence and considered the quality of the prosecution evidence, David drafted a list of admissions for the trial. His intention was that the prosecution agree these prior to trial.
These included maps, distances between specific locations and photographs of the Identification procedures. These were agreed by the prosecution.
Weakness in the Facebook Identification
Once they had been agreed, David wrote a detailed letter to the Prosecution outlining all of the difficulties they had with their case , particularly in the light of the agreed admissions and the alibi witnesses. Upon further consideration of the case following those representations the Prosecution accepted David’s points, including the weaknesses in the Facebook identification. The cases was discontinued without the need for a trial.
This case demonstrates how a diligent and focused criminal law specialist can make a real difference to the direction of a case. Early preparation put pressure on the prosecution to review the case in our client’s favour. Although we must have been confident of winning the case at trial, David’s approach removed all risk from any court hearing.
Contact David Gittins
Should you wish to contact Chesterfield crime solicitor David Gittins to discuss a new or ongoing case please telephone him at our Chesterfield office 01246 283000 or email him here.
