All posts by Andrew Wesley/h3>

Nottingham criminal solicitor advocate Phil Plant recently travelled to Northampton Crown Court to represent his client who was charged with conveying a prohibited item into prison.  The case was prepared by senior Crown Court Litigator Sarah Lees-Collier.

Prohibited Item Conveyed into Prison

Our client had arranged a visit to see her boyfriend in prison.  At the same time she had arranged to convey a mobile telephone and a quantity of the substance spice that at the time had been a legal high.  It has now been made illegal.

The drop was intercepted at the visits area, having been caught on CCTV.  Suspicions had been aroused when our client was seen passing her baby to her boyfriend.  The baby was reluctant to be passed over.  As this was taking place the swap was noticed.  The items were then seized.

Early Instructions

Phil took instructions from  his client. She maintained that she felt that her boyfriend was under pressure from people inside the prison.  She had made repeated attempts to bring it to the attention of the authorities including writing to her local MP.  These problems were largely ignored save that the defendant was moved prisons.  Within days of the defendant being moved her was viciously attacked and left with a noticeable scar.  It was a result of this attack that she felt under compulsion to take the item in to the prison.

Phil gave early realistic advice that all of this information might be effective mitigation, but would not provide her with a defence to bringing a prohibited item into prison. She accepted this advice and entered a guilty plea at her first Crown Court appearance.

Suspended Sentence Imposed

The Judge was initially prepared to adjourn for reports, and once all of the necessary information was before the court the sentencing Judge was prepared to suspend what was an inevitable prison sentence.  The decision was based on the effective mitigation that Phil was able to put before the court.

Contact Us

It will be important to you that you receive early advice that allows you to out your best case before the court, whether that is the Magistrates’ or Crown Court.  If you face proceedings, please contact Phil or Sarah on 0115 9599550 or 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.

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 or email her here.