All posts by Andrew Wesley/h3>

Mansfield crime solicitor Tim Haines recently dealt with a drink drive sentence for a client who was nearly four times the legal limit to drive. Careful mitigation permitted the client to avoid what appeared to be an inevitable prison sentence.

Four Times the Drink Drive Limit

The background to the allegations was that Tim’s client had called an ambulance for his friend who had become unwell.  Unfortunately he chose to follow the ambulance in his own vehicle.  He was stopped by the police in the hospital grounds.  He provided a sample of 139 in breath at this time, following it up with a sample of 136 in breath at the police station.  The legal limit is 35.

Credit for Guilty Plea

On taking instructions, Tim advised the client as to the strength of the evidence and credit for a guilty plea.  As a result, the client entered a timely guilty plea.  He abandoned an intention to argue that his drink had been spiked.  The level of reading would, in effect, prohibit the success of such an argument.

The reading meant that the Magistrates would be considering a custodial sentence, but this was also our client’s second conviction for drink driving within 5 years. His previous case had been dealt with by way of a community order due to that high reading.

He had been disqualified from driving for a significant period but had  successfully completed the drink drivers rehabilitation course thereby reducing that driving ban imposed by a quarter.

Although a prison sentence could easily have been justified for the current offence on the basis of current sentencing guidelines, bearing in mind the reading and the previous recent conviction, Tim was able to persuade the court to impose a suspended term of imprisonment with rehabilitation requirements attached.

Detailed and Careful Mitigation

Following the mitigation put by Tim, the Magistrates stressed that they had drawn back from an immediate prison sentence due to the detailed and careful mitigation advanced by Tim.  This recognised that the sentencing process should combine both punishment and the rehabilitation of offenders.

Tim’s client was understandably relieved following the sentencing hearing.

Contact Tim Haines

If you face criminal investigations or proceedings then please contact Tim Haines immediately on 01623 675816 or email him here..  He will advise you as to how best to proceed in order to secure the best result for you, whether at the police station, Magistrates’ or Crown Courts.

All posts by Andrew Wesley/h3>

Nottingham crime solicitor Graham Heathcote recently had the pleasure of travelling to Northallerton Magistrates’ Court to represent a client for dangerous driving who he has represented at his two previous firms of solicitors.  The client chooses to have Graham represent him, presumably on the basis that he may well be able to work wonders with any case.  More of this below…

Dangerous Driving ended in flames?

Graham’s client faced an allegation of dangerous driving.  The allegation involved witnesses stating that he was undertaking, tailgating and attempting to manoeuvre between two moving vehicles in adjacent lanes.  The incident ended with his client’s vehicle off the road and in a field.  The vehicle had rolled onto him all but severing his arm.  The car then burst into flames.

Late Instructions

Graham’s client had such confidence in his abilities that he failed to keep four office appointments, finally attending the office 48 hours before the trial.   Graham only received the MG5, which is a summary of the allegation and the evidence, from the Crown Prosecution Service the day before the trial.  The actual witness statements were only served at 9.45a.m. on the morning of the trial. These included the accident investigation report.

All witnesses were in attendance and prepared to give evidence.  The court was in a position to hear the trial.  An offer of a plea to careless driving fell on deaf ears.

I Can’t Remember

Cross-examination of witnesses was limited as the client could not recall anything of the incident.  Although he gave evidence on his own behalf, that largely consisted of an admission of previous driving offences while asserting that the driving on this occasion didn’t sound like the way he would drive.

After being addressed on the burden and standard of proof, the law relating to dangerous driving and our client’s account the Magistrates found him not guilty of dangerous driving.  He was, however, found guilty of careless driving but kept his driving licence.

Contact Graham Heathcote

If you are denying a case and the evidence is somewhat stacked against you, you ought to telephone Graham on 0115 9599550 or email him here.

All posts by Andrew Wesley/h3>

A report from HM Crown Prosecution Inspectorate entitled Better Case Management: A Snapshot has been published this month.

What is Better Case Management?

Better Case Management (BCM) is a judicially driven initiative. It is intended that the program save resources, time and therefore money in terms of court hearings and file preparation.

It requires a number of steps to be taken in good time to progress cases early and prior to the first Crown Court hearing – the Plea and Trial Preparation Hearing (PTPH). This primarily requires action by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) – timely service of the prosecution evidence, Indictment and PTPH form by uploading them to the Digital Case System (DCS).

There needs to be early engagement with the defence representatives following service to enable issues to be properly identified. Those cases that can be dealt with by way of an early guilty plea following negotiation are expected to be identified by both parties at an early stage.

The first Plea and Trial Preparation Hearings were listed in February 2016 following the January roll out and the roll out of the Digital Case File which commenced in spring 2016 and was completed that May.

Inspectors visited five of the early adopter courts and the court observations in July 2016 took place within seven months of national roll out of BCM at the other 25 court centres visited during the fieldwork. The report is fairly described as a ‘snapshot’ and is hopeful that further progress will have been made since July.

Key Principles

The CPS identified ten key principles against which success can be judged. Unfortunately, the report appears to identify significant problems:

• Despite this being a national process, levels of compliance for some aspects of the scheme were as low as 10%
• Cases are not reviewed properly by the Crown either before the first Magistrates’ Court hearing or after sending to the Crown Court
• The police are charging cases in breach of guidance on charging without challenge from the CPS
• Limited evidence of CPS file ownership
• Although generally sufficient material was uploaded this was not always within the BCM timescales
• CCTV cannot be uploaded to the system and is not always available for a hearing
• Little evidence of active engagement between parties prior to the PTPH, with these deficiencies going unchallenged by the judiciary
• The absence of engagement results in additional hearings rather than fewer hearings
• PTPH hearings often had more emphasis on the timetabling process rather than being an informed discussion of the issues
• The CPS need to improve significantly if it is to contribute to the success of the initiative

The Future?

There is a broad view that Better Case Management and digital service is a positive innovation in terms of being able to provide early advice to those facing criminal proceedings. We view it as a positve step forward. It is, however, dependent on the CPS maintaining focus on the initiative with a view to driving the improvements needed above.

The report appears optimistic that this is achievable, but we will have to wait and see.

The full report can be found here.

All posts by Andrew Wesley/h3>

VHS Fletchers are delighted to confirm that Serena Simpson qualified as a criminal solicitor at Chesterfield on 1 November 2016.  This followed the successful completion of her Training Contract with the firm.

New Criminal Solicitor

Serena will be based at our Chesterfield office representing clients in all aspects of their cases – police stations advice, magistrates’ court representation and crown court litigation.

Serena joined us in April 2015 after we took on the staff and case load of the criminal department of Banner Jones Solicitors. It was soon clear that Serena has a passion for criminal work and we made good on our promise of a training contract.

Over the last 18 months Serena has demonstrated this passion and diligence while working with us.

Police Station Accredited

She quickly attaining accreditation to be allowed to represent clients at the police station for the full range of offence.  She can also advise clients whether they come to the firm due to a specific request for our advice or through the duty solicitor scheme.

Serena now regularly advises those detained at Chesterfield Police Station, representing clients in a variety of matters from more simple driving matters to complicated and serious sexual assaults, including rape.

Putting Clients at Ease

Serena’s bright and friendly outlook will put clients at ease in the stressful and often alien environment of the police station. Serena builds on her quiet but effective manner by being available to deal with any queries or problems and provide reassurance post interview.

Crown Court Litigator

At the same time Serena has also been undertaking litigation on Crown Court cases.  This role has required Serena to work alongside  in-house barristers and solicitor advocates preparing some of the most serious matters to be heard by a jury.  She has been keen to attend court in support of the advocate and client, and has gained significant experience in the effective preparation and presentation of cases.

As part of her route to qualification as a criminal solicitor Serena has attended additional courses relating to the preparation and presentation of cases before the Magistrates’ Court.

Magistrates’ Court Training

We believe that training and development are extremely important and additionally she has had the opportunity of working alongside and shadowing our experienced Magistrates’ advocates David Gittins, Kevin Tomlinson and Ben Strelley.  This has involved the preparation of cases involving assessing evidence, identifying issues, taking instructions, speaking with witnesses and preparing cases for contested hearings.

You can be confident in instructing Serena that despite recently qualifying Serena already has substantial experience in her chosen field of criminal law.  This experienced is back by her organisation and intention to do the best for her clients.

Although some may say it is beginner’s luck, we would argue that the fact that her very first piece of advocacy before the court resulted in a prosecution discontinuance was due to her analysis of the evidence and her representations to the Crown.

All posts by Andrew Wesley/h3>

VHS Fletchers are part of a group of only five firms that are contracted to prosecute on behalf of the Health and Safety Executive following the outcome of a successful tender.

Details of our specialist team comprising Andy Siddall, Jon Hullis, Andrew Broome and Helen Lees can be found by following the links.

New sentencing guidelines have lead to greater penalties and a change in emphasis has meant that the prosecutions of individual company directors and senior managers have tripled.

We are pleased, through our prosecution work, to contribute to the provision of safe workplaces and practices for staff.

If you have a query about this work then please telephone Andy Siddall on 0115 944 1233 or andy.siddall@vhsfletchers.co.uk