All posts by Andrew Wesley/h3>

Chesterfield crime solicitor David Gittins appeared before Chesterfield Magistrates and persuaded them to depart from sentencing guidelines.

The Allegations

His client faced allegations of two unprovoked assaults on elderly and vulnerable victims.  On two separate occasions she had been in Chesterfield Town centre and approached elderly individuals.

On one occasion the victim was knocked to the floor.  The second time the victim was punched to the face.  The sentencing guidelines placed the assaults as unprovoked and sustained and involved vulnerable victims.

David’s  instructions were that his client had committed the offences.  At the time she was suffering from poor mental health.   On arrest the Defendant had been admitted to a Psychiatric Unit for 3 weeks.  This treatment allowed her release and interview by the police.

Bearing in mind the agreed mental health issues, it was disappointing that the case was charged.  An alternative disposal might have been appropriate.

Prior to attending Court the Defendant instructed David to represent her.  His experience with dealing with vulnerable defendants allowed her to  feel at ease throughout the Court process.

The Prosecution outlined the case.  Understandably the Magistrates indicated that they would need a Pre-Sentence report to assist with sentencing.  The potential for a custodial sentence was being considered.

Rather than agree to this course of action, David made representations.  He stressed the uniqueness of the case and suggested to the court that there were further options available.

Sentencing Guidelines

David argued that all parties accepted the Defendant was suffering from poor mental health at the time of the incident.  The health problems led his client to act as she had.  It would be unfair to punish the defendant as if she were fully culpable for her actions.

The court was addressed on the guidelines.  They are not inflexible and can be departed from.  As a result of all of David’s representations  the Court reflected upon its original indication.

The Chesterfield Magistrates chose to  impose a conditional discharge. This is an unusual disposal for what were serious assaults.  The character of the offender and the nature of the crime meant punishment would not be appropriate. No further action will be taken unless David’s client commits a further offence within the period of the discharge.

This case illustrates the value of instructing an experienced criminal practitioner to represent you if charged with a criminal offence, even if you are guilty. David’s experience meant that he has the confidence to make constructive suggestions to progress a case.  This can achieve what may seem to be, at first glance, surprising outcomes.

Funding

Our client had the benefit of legal aid.  This means that our advice and representation of her was free of charge to her.  We will always investigate the best way to fund your case.

Contact Us

If you have a case before Chesterfield Magistrates please contact  contact David at the Chesterfield office on 01246 283000 or by email here.  If you want to find a lawyer at your nearest office then please look here.

All posts by Andrew Wesley/h3>

Chesterfield Solicitor Kevin Tomlinson undertook the litigation in relation to two of six animal rights defendants who faced trial before Preston Crown Court.  The clients were represented by Andy Fitzpatrick and Matthew Stanbury of Garden Court North.

All six were charged with Conspiracy to Cause Criminal Damage to animal traps and snares on a country estate in Lancashire.  The allegation was that the defendants agreed to cause damage to animal traps and snares.  These had been set by gamekeepers on the grouse and pheasant shooting estate.

Over time, the gamekeepers had found damaged traps and snares and reported the matter to Lancashire Wildlife police officers. Ultimately, the police enquiry was taken over by the Counter Terrorism Unit of Lancashire police.

The defendants all had an interest in animal rights and welfare.  The trapping and snaring of animals on the shooting estate was considered to be responsible for the decimation of the hen harrier population in the area, and the trapping and snaring of a wide range of animals, including badgers and, as it turned out, domestic animals.

These issues have recently been debated in parliament and is due to be debated again following a successful campaign by Chris Packham.

Five of the defendants were detained by the police at the scene following their rescue of a cat from a trap.  It had been found hanging by a badly broken leg.   The police allowed them to take the cat to a vet for urgent treatment. Their details were taken and subsequently all five and one other were arrested.

The trial was listed in September before Preston Crown Court.  Three weeks of court time had been set aside.  In the event, two of the other defendants pleaded guilty to criminal damage to traps and snares.  This was to a value of £312.  As a result, both of these defendants received community orders for offences that could and should have remained in the Magistrates’ Court.  This would have represented a substantial saving to the tax payer.

Kevin’s two clients and the remaining to defendants were found ‘not guilty’ when the prosecution offered no evidence on the same day.  Kevin’s clients were placed in a strong position by the work that he had undertaken on their behalf.  Any argument at trial would have been two-fold:

• there was no agreement to cause damage

• in any event, the traps and snares had been set illegally by the gamekeepers

The second part of the defence was based on expert evidence from the country’s leading expert in animal trapping, Professor Stephen Harris.  He examined the evidence of the gamekeepers and would have told the jury of the illegal use of traps and snares on the estate by the employed gamekeepers.

Had the case gone to trial it may well have exposed an arguably  ‘cosy’ relationship between the gamekeepers and the Wildlife crime officers of Lancashire police.

If you have a similar case involving your protection of animal rights that you wish to discuss then please contact Kevin Tomlinson on 01246 283000 or by email here.

All posts by Andrew Wesley/h3>

Despite a late instruction for representation in a road traffic case, Mansfield crime solicitor Melanie Hoffman mitigated to avoid a disqualification on behalf of her client.

Mel’s client had dealt with the early stages of the case himself, pleading guilt to an allegation of careless driving by post.  He had admitted driving through a red light which resulted in a collision with a bus.  A number of passengers were taken to hospital having sustained injuries.

 

The client’s case was aggravated by the fact that he already had 3 penalty points on his licence.

Following receipt of his guilty plea by post, the Magistrates had adjourned his case for him to attend.  There would then be consideration given to whether he ought to be disqualified.  It was after receiving the adjournment notice that Mel was instructed to represent him.

The client had mitigation relevant to the issue of disqualification:

• his partner lived some distance away
• he and a colleague were dependent upon his licence to get to work
• he provided care for his elderly grandmother and needed his vehicle for this
• alternative means of transport to allow him to undertake his responsibilities would have been too expensive for his wages

Every sentencing hearing involves balancing the seriousness of the offence against any personal circumstances that can properly be put forward on a client’s behalf.  In this case, Mel was able to persuade the Magistrates that it was not necessary to impose points that would have led to a totting disqualification, nor to impose a discretionary ban.

Instead, the Mansfield Magistrates imposed 7 penalty points along with the financial penalty.  Mel’s  client was able to continue to drive, work and undertake family responsibilities.

Although it is not impossible to obtain legal aid for such offences, it i more difficult.  If legal aid is not available we are able to represent you for an affordable fixed fee.

If you wish to discuss a road traffic case with Mel then please contact her at our Mansfield office 01623 675816 or email her here.  Otherwise contact a lawyer at your nearest office.

All posts by Andrew Wesley/h3>

Recently, Nottingham crime solicitor and partner Martin Hadley proved the truth of the maxim ‘if you don’t ask, you don’t get’ when he represented a client charged with cannabis production before Nottingham Magistrates’ Court.

The client had been arrested at his home address after the police had been called to an alleged incident of domestic violence.  Although that was not pursued, the police who attended discovered the client and 20 cannabis plants.

These were being grown in circumstances which could only be described as professional and commercial including an irrigation system, additional Carbon Dioxide and extraction fans.

The evidence suggesting that Martin’s client was involved in the commercial production of cannabis was apparently strong.  The matter may well have been sent to the Crown Court to be dealt with, and a court would be thinking of a sentence, after unsuccessful trial, of 12 months imprisonment.  The client would also be at risk of confiscation proceedings.

The client’s instructions were that he had not been staying at his home address, but had instead been at his partner’s house.  He had only become aware of the cannabis plants on the day the police were called.  He accepted that he had spoken to the person growing the plants and watched him water them, and had not asked him to move them or contacted the police.

 

The prosecution was persuaded to substitute an allegation of permitting premises to be used for the growing of cannabis.  Martin’s client pleaded guilty.  He was then sentenced on the basis that he had only been involved in the offence for a matter of hours.

The Magistrates chose to impose a conditional discharge.  This is an unusual disposal for what was apparently a serious allegation.  The court decided that given the character of the offender and the nature of the crime, punishment would not be appropriate.

Martin’s client was released and the offence registered on their criminal record. No further action will be taken unless they commit a further offence within the period of the discharge.

This case illustrates the value of instructing an experienced criminal practitioner to represent you if charged with a criminal offence.  Martin’s years of experience mean that he has the confidence of both the prosecutor and the court, so when he makes a constructive suggestion to progress a case people are likely to listen.

If you are charged with cannabis production or other matters you can contact Martin at the Nottingham office on 0115 9599550 or by email here.

All posts by Andrew Wesley/h3>

Nottingham solicitor advocates Phil Plant and Jon Hullis had a successful visit to the Court of Appeal this week.  In February of this year, their clients had been sentenced to 13 years and 4 years 8 months respectively at Nottingham Crown Court.

Phil’s client was initially arrested for an allegation of supply of heroin to Jon’s client, our other client being arrested for possession with intent to supply the drug.  The transaction involved the purchase of £7000 of heroin.

While on bail for this offence, Phil’s client was then arrested in possession of twelve packages of 1 kilogram of heroin, and faced a separate charge of possession with intent to supply heroin.

Unsurprisingly, the sentencing guidelines for these offences mean that it is almost inevitable that lengthy custodial sentences will be imposed.

As a result, the fact that prison sentences of some length were imposed came as no surprise to either client.  We, however, were concerned that taking into account the guidelines and the stage at which the guilty pleas were entered the final sentences were simply too long.

Phil and Jon drafted positive advices on appeal and the necessary grounds of appeal, arguing that the sentences imposed were ‘manifestly excessive’.   The papers were favourably reviewed by a single judge at the London Court and the matter was listed before the full court for argument.

In delivering the judgement of the Court of Appeal, Lord Justice Burnett shared the view that the sentences were too long in all the circumstances of the case.  The sentences were reduced by 2 years and 8 months, and 8 months, respectively.

A third appellant, separately represented, was unsuccessful in a similar appeal.

Cases such as this show that our solicitor advocates properly identify the issues of importance in a client’s case, and are able to provide representation from early stages of proceedings through to the conclusion of a case at the Court of Appeal.

Should you wish to discuss Crown Court or appeal proceedings with one of our lawyers please contact your nearest office or email us here.