All posts by Andrew Wesley/h3>

In-house Barrister Steve Gosnell and Senior Crown Court litigator Ruth Campbell worked together successfully to secure a not guilty verdict for a client before Derby Crown Court.

The Allegations

Our client faced three allegations of sexual assault involving a family member.  It was said that while at a family gathering both our client and the complainant were in drink.  He was said to have touched the complainant intimately, resulting in the three charges.

Key Disclosure

The key to the case involved additional disclosure.  The prosecution provided us with the case against our client but this did not include key mobile telephone evidence that he said would assist in his defence.

A document called a defence statement was carefully prepared on our client’s instructions.  This document is important not just because there is an obligation for a client to set out their defence or run the risk of the jury drawing adverse conclusions as to why he would not commit himself to a defence.

If is also important because it can cause the Crown to review material that it has in its possession or make further enquiries.  In this case, the review by the prosecution resulted in the additional disclosure of the contents of a text conversation between the two parties to the allegation.

Skilful Cross-Examination

The detail of this conversation was used by Steve in skilful cross-examination of the  witness.  It suggested that the account must be untrue, undermining the account that she had given to the jury and was properly emphasized in Steve’s closing address.

After what was no doubt careful consideration of the case the jury returned a not guilty verdict in relation to each count.

Preparation of a court case by experienced expert criminal lawyers can make a very real difference to the outcome of a case.  Here it was identified that the Crown held information that would undermine its case and we ensured that information was provided to assist our client.  It was then effectively deployed at trial.

Contact Us

If you face Crown Court allegations then please contact us at your most convenient office. We will provide you with legal and practical advice as to how best to progress your case.  You can read about the service we provide here.

All posts by Andrew Wesley/h3>

A Peer Review is a requirement of our contract with the Legal Aid Agency.  A random selection of files are made.  A reviewer will examine how we have dealt with client matters across all of our offices.  This process is purely on the basis of the information recorded by our lawyers on the files supplied.

Our clients will know that we have worked very hard to ensure consistency of approach whether you see a solicitor at Nottingham, Derby, Chesterfield, Mansfield or Ilkeston.  We are pleased to be able to report that the reviewer agreed that we have been successful.

Following the random sampling, a number of positive aspects of our service were identified by the independent reviewer.

“Good Outcomes for Clients”

The adjudicator found evidence that we are “securing good outcomes for clients in all categories of work” – at the police station, Magistrates’ and Crown Courts.  These were evidenced by clients being refused charge, having the benefit of submissions of no case to answer or receiving sentences that were a significant departure from the published guidelines.

“Timely and Realistic Advice”

The reviewer noted that as a firm we ensured that our clients are “given timely and realistic advice about the strength of the evidence against them”.  We showed that this advice allowed clients to secure the maximum available credit for early guilty pleas.  Indications of culpability for lesser charges were given early, again maintaining credit when the Crown finally accepted the account given by our client.

“Pro-active”

“Pro-active steps were taken” to seek full instructions early in cases to allow the early drafting of, for example, a basis of plea, that was agreed with the prosecution prior to the first Crown Court hearing.  This allowed the client to be sentenced in a manner favourable to him.

“Readily Understandable Advice”

Our “clients were given clear and readily understandable advice about the strengths and weaknesses of the prosecution and defence cases and their prospects at trial”.  Our clients “were able to make fully informed decisions about their case”, with the advice given in plain English and clear, readily understandable terms.

“Actively Pursued Disclosure”

These strengths were combined with our “pro-active approach to the preparation and management of cases”.  It was observed that we “actively pursued outstanding disclosure issues” on behalf of clients, whether cases were at the Magistrates’ or Crown Court.  The strengths or weaknesses of the prosecution or defence cases were kept under constant review.

“Client Focussed Approach”

Our approach to managing client appointments, the provision of advice in person and in writing and our regular updates on cased “increased the prospects of our clients engaging in the preparation of their cases and provided further evidence of our client focussed approach”.

Contact Us

VHS Fletchers have offices across the East Midlands.  We offer representation in criminal cases from the police station through to the Court of Appeal.  Independent reviews of the quality of our advice such as these can give you confidence in instructing this firm to represent you.

Please find you nearest office here, or email us here.  We look forward to hearing from you.

All posts by Andrew Wesley/h3>

Nottingham based senior Crown Court litigator Laura Clarson worked with counsel Dean Kershaw of No 5 Chambers to avoid a firearm minimum sentence of five years.

The Allegation

Laura’s client was stopped in customs at Birmingham airport.  He had arrived from Turkey where he had been working for a period of a few months.   His luggage was searched and he was found to be in possession of 3 tasers or stun guns.  These were disguised as torches.

As a result he was charged with possession of three disguised firearm under Section 5(1A)(a) of the Firearms Act 1968.   This meant that he was liable for a minimum sentence of five years custody.  This sentence could only be avoided if ‘exceptional circumstances’ applied.

Our client maintained throughout that he bought them from a market in Istanbul believing them to be torches.  He intended to keep one and give the others as gifts. He did not appreciate they also operated as stun guns.  Click here to see the items:

Disguised Stun Gun

Laura gave the difficult advice to the client, that as he knew that he had the items he was guilty of the offence.  His lack of knowledge as to how the items operated did not provide a defence.  He sought a second opinion from another firm of solicitors – in their rush to be optimistic, and perhaps tell him what he wanted to hear, the advice was legally incorrect.

Exceptional Circumstances

At the first Crown Court hearing our client pleaded guilty but on the basis set out to the police in interview.  The case was adjourned for a hearing as to whether he could be sentenced on that basis.  Counsel provided continuity of representation, despite being involved in a trial at the time.

Evidence was given by the client and submissions were made by Counsel.  Having heard from our client, the Judge was able to sentence him on a basis favourable to him.  Exceptional circumstances were said to apply, and in combination with extensive mitigation the Judge was able to impose a free-standing suspended sentence rather than the firearm minimum sentence of five years.

Laura’s client was relieved, being able to keep his employment and a roof over his head!

Contact Laura

Sometimes we have to give you difficult advice.  Even when we do that, you can be confident that we will continue to fight for the best outcome possible in your case.  If you wish to discuss a case involving a firearm minimum sentence or any other case with Laura please telephone 0115 9599550 or email her here.

She will provide you with advice on every aspect of your case, from funding, through to evidence, and likely outcome so that you can make the best choices.

All posts by Andrew Wesley/h3>

Senior Crown Court Litigator Laura Clarson recently worked with Nick Jones, a barrister from 5 St Andrew’s Hill Chambers, at Nottingham Crown Court to secure an acquittal for her client.

Serious Violent Offence at Nottingham Crown Court

Laura’s client was charged with another accused of causing grievous bodily harm with intent.  The allegation was that the complainant had been assaulted with a weapon, probably a bat, as a result of his unwanted attentions in relation to our client’s mother.

The injuries involved fractures to the complainant’s face.  Blood had been lost by the complainant.  It was the prosecution’s contention that this blood evidence could make a jury sure that Laura’s client had been one of those who took part in the attack.

A favourable outcome to the case was extremely important to her client, not least because the Sentencing Guidelines for this offence suggested that if convicted he could expect to receive a sentence that would start at 6 years in prison.

The case required careful preparation.  The witness had no recollection of the incident which led to his injuries.  They were of such severity, however, that he must have been subject to a serious assault.  Although Laura’s client was now asserting that he had not taken part in the assault, he had not told the truth to the police during the early stages of the investigation.

Expert Evidence

The Crown maintained that it’s expert analysis of the blood evidence was decisive and claimed that if would offer the jury no alternative but to conclude that Laura’s client had been involved.

As soon as the blood evidence was disclosed, Laura instructed a respected expert, Gillian Leak of Principal Forensic Service to provide a report on behalf of her client.

Despite early service of these conclusions and the seniority and experience of our expert the Crown proved intransigent in relation to the case.  There was resistance to an early conference between experts to find points of common ground.  It transpired during the course of these negotiations that the Crown expert had not been given the entirety of the Crown case in order to further review his findings.

Although it was clear to Laura in March 2016 that the Crown’s view of the blood evidence would be unsustainable at trial, the prosecution continued nonetheless.  Problems in the complainant’s case were highlighted during cross-examination.  Most importantly, the Crown expert conceded many points in our client’s favour during questioning.

Belatedly, the Crown saw reason dropped the case against Laura’s client half way through the trial at Nottingham Crown Court and he was found not guilty.  This was six months after Laura had served the evidence and made representations about the wisdom of the prosecution.

Contact Us

Crown Court cases are often complicated and steps will need to be taken to challenge what at first glance appears to be conclusive evidence.  Please contact Laura if you have a case before Nottingham Crown Court on 0115 9599550 or email her here.  Alternatively, find your closest office here.

All posts by Andrew Wesley/h3>

Senior Crown Court litigator Lisa Sawyer recently worked with counsel Michael Levy from  2 Bedford Row  Chambers to successfully defend a client against an historic sex allegation.

Defending an historic sex allegation

The offence was said to have taken place 10 years ago.  The incident wasn’t reported to the police until 2015. Such delays make the preparation of such cases more difficult. Memories are likely to fade and helpful witnesses will be difficult to locate.

The client maintained that any sexual activity was consensual.  He had had recent contact with the complainant on social media which the prosecution claimed indicated that he accepted committing the offences.

Lisa’s client knew that he faced very serious offences.  He was aware that a conviction would not only have an effect on him, but also his family and friends.

The Preparation

Although the case was in Nottingham, our client lived in Glasgow and he wished representation from counsel based in London.  He also had some learning difficulties and was dyslexic.  The geographical and personal complications meant that Lisa had to spend the time necessary to ensure that the client was happy with his instructions including:

• two lengthy meetings over several hours to take the client through the papers and seek instructions

• preparing typed instructions and giving the client the time to consider and amend them

• attend conference with counsel and client in London

• spend additional time explaining the trial process

• attending the trial throughout

Lisa’s command of the case and knowledge of the client meant that she was able to reassure the client as to the preparation being undertaken on his case and assist counsel with a steer towards the relevant aspects of the case.

The Verdict

The client gave evidence well before the jury, and after four days the jury returned a not guilty verdict, to the relief of the client.

The preparation and outcome of this case demonstrates that advice and preparation from an experienced litigator on combination with the right advocate can ensure the best outcome for clients.

Contact a Crown Court defence specialist

Some further information about how we will prepare to defend your case here.  Although our offices are based in the East Midlands we will prepare nationwide representation.  You can find your nearest office here.

If you face an historic sex allegation or any other matter to be dealt with before the Crown Court then please contact Lisa on 0115 9599550.  Alternatively you can use the contact form below.