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.

All posts by Andrew Wesley/h3>

We are pleased to confirm that we have been awarded the legal aid contracts that we bid for earlier in the year.

These contracts allow us to provide publicly funded representation for our clients at the police station and Magistrates’ and Crown courts nationwide.

Duty Solicitor Work

VHS Fletchers will also be able to represent those clients who ask for the duty solicitor at police stations and courts across Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire.

Prison Law

As a firm we do not forget about clients once a case is concluded. We are pleased to confirm that we will be able to continue to represent our own and other clients who have issues that arise during the serving of any custodial sentence through our prison law department.

Contact Us

Please find your most convenient office here to contact one of our lawyers or email us here.

All posts by Andrew Wesley/h3>

Mansfield criminal solicitor Melanie Hoffman recently represented a client at a trial for allegations of domestic violence before Mansfield Magistrates’ Court.  He faced charges of assaulting both his his estranged wife and teenage daughter during a visit to the former matrimonial home.

In police interview Mel’s client had answered questions, raising self defence on both counts without the benefit of legal advice. This account was maintained at his first Magistrates’ Court appearance and he entered not guilty pleas.

Pressure from the Bench

These pleas were entered despite pressure being applied by the court in the form of an indication that custody would be the likely outcome in the event of conviction after trial.  Alternatively, there was mention of a community order following an early guilty plea.

Mel’s client did not give in to this pressure, maintaining his instructions.  As a result, Mel began her detailed trial preparation.  This thorough examination of the statements highlighted a number of inconsistencies in the prosecution written witness statements and video interviews.  This preparation allowed the careful editing of the video to ensure that information that was not relevant to the trial issue and would prejudice her client was removed.

Special Measure for Witnesses in Domestic Violence

At trial, Mel pursued a line of sensitive but meticulous cross-examination of both ex-wife and child witness.  The former had the benefit of being screened from Mel’s client, the latter was questioned across a video link.  This measures are common place in such trials.

During this questioning the inconsistencies previously noted by Mel during her case preparation began to emerge.

Mel’s client gave evidence on his own behalf.  This was consistent with the explanation that he had given to the police in interview several months before.

Detailed Closing Speech

In her closing speech, Mel’s grasp of the case allowed her to take the Magistrates through the detail of the case, highlighting what she believed amounted to significant inconsistencies between the accounts of the prosecution witnesses.  This was usefully contrasted with the consistent account given by her client.  Mel also reminded the Magistrates that they would have to take into account her client’s good character, relevant to whether he was telling the truth and likely to have committed the offences.

She submitted that this combination of factors meant that the prosecution had not made the Magistrates sure of her client’s guilt. The Magistrates agreed with Mel’s representations and found her client not guilty of both charges.  In their reasons they explained that owing to the inconsistencies high-lighted by Mel they weren’t sure that the defendant had acted in the manner alleged.

Restraining Order Refused

Unfortunately, there is now the opportunity for the prosecution to apply for a Restraining Order even where a person is found not guilty of all of the offences of domestic violence.  The Crown chose to make such an application here, but Mel successfully opposed this application  on the basis of the difficulties with the original evidence and the fact that there had been no suggestion of difficulties in the months between the allegation being made and trial.

Contact Melanie Hoffman

Are you at risk of losing your good name as a result of criminal allegations?  Do you face allegations of domestic violence?  If you wish to discuss a police investigation or court proceedings with Mel then please telephone her on 01623 675816 or email her here.