Recently we outlined details of a client’s case here where both a contested hearing and immediate custody were avoided.  Derbyshire Solicitor Advocate William Bennett and Senior Crown Court Litigator Ruth Campbell dealt with the case.

Our client has taken the time to complete our client feedback questionnaire and declared that she was ‘very satisfied’ with our overall level of service.  Our ‘excellent service’ needed no improvement.

Her comments were all the more pleasing as she had previously dealt with Banner Jones solicitors whose criminal staff and case load we took on in April 2015.

She went on to say that VHS Fletchers would be a first choice of recommendation to anyone who would need an ‘excellent firm of solicitors’.

The form was not enough for the client to spell out the level of service she felt she received, and she continued on an additional sheet to set out that the help and advice of William and Ruth throughout the case was ‘extremely helpful and 100% brilliant’.  She remarked on Ruth’s compassion and understanding, and felt that without this support and advice she would have ‘crashed’.  Our help allowed her to ‘remain strong’.

Aside from being relieved about the outcome, our client is taking full advantage of all of the opportunities that the court sentence is affording her.  She is receiving excellent help from her probation officer, due to meet with Addaction, and has managed to cut her alcohol intake by half.

We will always welcome feedback. Positive feedback will show staff that they are doing things right, whereas constructive feedback will show us, as a firm, where we need to change to continue to improve the first class service that we try to give all of our clients.

If you have a case that you wish to discuss with a Derbyshire solicitor then please contact your most convenient office.  You can contact Ruth by email or William Bennett here.

Senior Crown Court Litigator Laura Clarson prepared a case for a not guilty verdict.  Her client faced two allegations of dwelling house burglary, aggravated vehicle taking and simple taking of a vehicle without the owners consent.  If found guilty he would have received at least 3 years in prison.

Taken at face value, the evidence would appear extremely strong.  The client had been arrested having been traced to where he was hiding behind a car by a police dog.

The police had recovered two watches stolen from the burglary.  This had been committed less than an hour before the client’s arrest.  They were found next to a gate that Laura’s client had jumped over during the pursuit

Keys from a vehicle taken was found under the car our client was hiding behind. When searched he was also in possession of a mask and gloves.

The defence of the case was made that much more difficult by the fact that our client had a substantial record of previous convictions for burglary offence and vehicle taking.

Laura’s client was passionate in his denials of the allegation.  He maintained that a second person was responsible for the offending rather than him.  Presentation of this defence was potentially hampered by the fact that he failed to give this explanation at the police station when represented by another firm of solicitors.

Her preparation, on her client’s instructions, began to show how the prosecution case was perhaps not as strong as it first looked and a not guilty verdict could be secured.

The following points were usefully made:

• A second male was present although police officers could not agree about that fact
• The dog handler could have traced the second male had pursuing officers mentioned him
• Although there were eye witnesses, identification parades did not take place as Laura’ client did not match the descriptions
• Defence established that a second male had had these allegations ‘taken into consideration’ when sentenced earlier

Although emotional about what he said were the lies of the police as to what had happened on that day, Laura’s client gave clear and compelling evidence as to his lack of involvement.  His account was tested by the prosecutor in robust cross examination but our client did not waver.

After a little over five hours the jury returned with a not guilty verdict.  Laura’s client was understandably relieved, and pleased that Laura, his barrister and the jury gave his account the weight that it deserved.

Our client was represented by counsel Dan Bishop from 7 Bedford Row who gave clear and helpful tactical advice on how to best present the case to the jury.  Decisions were made has to how best to cross-examine the police officers (gently or robustly) and whether to call as a witness the person who had admitted the offences upon sentence.  Ultimately, the right decisions were made.

This case demonstrates the benefits of instructing a firm with a specialist Crown Court department.  Laura spends all of her working day preparing the most serious cases that come before the court.  This may be for trials or sentence, but her experience means that she will give each case the attention to detail that it needs.

She will also be able to advise you as to the availability of legal aid.  Information can be found here and here.

If you have a case that you wish to discuss with Laura please contact her at our Nottingham office by telephone 0115 9599550 or by email here.

VHS Fletchers, as well as dealing with current criminal cases, also hold a contract with the Legal Aid Agency to provide advice on prison law matters and appeals.  This means that the advice, assistance and representation that we are able to give does not cease at the conclusion of any current criminal case.  We will be able to advise and assist in any joint enterprise appeals.

This is of importance to two clients that our prison law specialist Irene Tolley  represented at trial in 2004, when working for Varley Hadley Siddall solicitors.

At the time the case was one said to have ‘made British legal history’ , with the prosecutor announcing that he did not know of any comparable case.  The officer in the case described the prosecution as ‘unprecedented’, with the Crown Prosecution Service describing the case as ‘the first of its kind’.

On behalf of the clients Irene and counsel pursued appeals to the Court of Appeal and subsequently to the Criminal Cases Review Commission but without success.

Following legal developments earlier in the year set out below, Irene was in the process of locating the clients as they made contact with her.

On 18 February 2016 the Supreme Court delivered a landmark judgement in the case of R v Jogee.

This ‘re-stated’ the principles of criminal joint enterprise in murder trial’s.  The court decided that for the last 30 years the interpretation of the law had been in error, ‘…equat[ing] foresight with an intention to assist, as a matter of law; the correct approach is to treat it as evidence of intent’.

The difference now is that a jury must be sure that a secondary party, a person who did not themselves carry out the fatal act, must now intend that the offence is carried out before they can be convicted of murder.

The Supreme Court were careful, however, to stress that the decision would not open the floodgates to 30 years of appeals on this issue:

‘…it does not follow that it will have been important on the facts to the outcome of the trial or to the safety of the conviction.  Moreover, where a conviction has been arrived at by faithfully applying the law as it stood at the time, it can be set aside only by seeking exceptional leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal out of time.  That court has power to grant such leave, and may do so if substantial injustice be demonstrated, but it will not do so simply because the law applied has now been declared to have been mistaken…’

As a result, the pursuit of any appeal after such a period of time cannot simply rely upon a perceived ‘change of law’ in joint enterprise.  Prospective appellants will have to demonstrate that as a result there has been ‘substantial injustice’ to the individual looking at the case as a whole.

Irene, along with original counsel, are taking these appeals forward, but there is much further work to do.

Should you wish to discuss a potential joint enterprise appeal with Irene, please contact her at the Nottingham office by letter or telephone 0115 9599550.  Alternatively, she can be contacted by email here.

Irene is able to assist with other appeals and a range if prison law matters.  Information about that can be found here.

UPDATE:  Commentary from Andrew Wesley about the Jogee decision and joint enterprise can be found on the ITV website here.

Legal Aid is available for defending Crown Court proceedings.  It will always be granted on the merits of the case, but is subject to a means test.  The legal aid certificate can be granted with or without a contribution from your monthly income.

Even if you do not have to pay an income contribution you might have sufficient capital to mean that money is collected from that capital at the conclusion of the case.  Although the monthly income level is set reasonably high, it can be that you will not qualify at all for Crown Court Legal Aid.

Bearing in mind the stress to you that defending proceedings will involve, we recognise that it is important that your defence is affordable.  As a result we will provide you with all of the alternatives available to you in the funding of your case.

An application for legal aid will have several benefits:

• if you win your case any contributions you make will be returned to you
• if you are not entitled to legal aid and win your case then you will be able to apply for a proportion of your fees to be repaid from central funds
• it is likely to make your representation by litigator and advocate more affordable, particularly if the case involves the instruction of expert witnesses

The first step will be to submit an application for legal aid, having taken all of the information necessary for the legal aid means test to be undertaken.  Documentary evidence in support of your income and expenditure will need to be submitted to the Legal Aid Agency (LAA) in due course, but the initial decision will be made upon the basis of the fully completed form.

The initial response from the LAA will indicate whether or not a contribution will be required from your income.  Unfortunately, there will be no indication as to the level of any capital contribution.  This will be calculated at the conclusion of your case if you plead or are found guilty.

When you receive notification of any income contribution it might be that it may appear difficult to afford.  This is because the expenditure that is offset against your income is very limited.  At this stage we will help you decide whether you ought to accept the offer of legal aid.

We will be able to calculate the likely cost of the preparation and the advocacy involved in your case and in many cases will be able to undertake the work on a private basis, but with fees limited to the amount that we would recover from the Legal Aid Agency.

This might be particularly attractive where you know that you will be pleading guilty so will not be entitled to recover costs, your monthly contribution is high and the case is likely to take several months to conclude.

It might be less helpful in a denied matter involving a substantial amount of work and a lengthy trial.

We will take the time to discuss all of your options with you to allow you to make the right decision as to how best to fund your case.  If you have a case you wish to discuss then please contact your nearest office or email us here.

Our Mansfield solicitors received individual items of positive feedback from clients they have represented within the last week.

Melanie Hoffman assisted a client at trial who was charged with Assault Occasioning Actual bodily harm.  The allegation arose out of a long-standing neighbour dispute, and was said to have been a prolonged assault resulting in a fracture.

The trial involved cross-examination of three prosecution witnesses, all of whom gave evidence that Mel’s client had assaulted the complainant in various ways.  Careful preparation meant that Mel was able to highlight all of the inconsistencies between these  witnesses.  Mel was also able to highlight to the Magistrates and the prosecutor that the injuries were not supportive of a charge of causing Actual Bodily Harm.

As a result, although the client was found guilty of an allegation of common assault, he was found not guilty of the more serious charge.  Despite having had a trial, Melanie put forward mitigation that allowed the Magistrates to deal with her client by way of a financial penalty only.

Her client was very pleased as he provided a prompt and full testimonial , stating that Mel was ‘outstanding in Court today’.  He went on to say that of other Mansfield solicitors she was ‘the best solicitor I have ever come across’, maintaining that she was ‘tremendous’, fighting for him in court and secured ‘the best result’.

Separately, solicitor Tim Haines represented a client for a drink drive charge.  She was 3 1/2 times the legal limit to drive, and her driving resulted in a road traffic accident with a stationary car, leading to her own car being written off. Tim’s client had never appeared in court before.

Guidance for sentence in such cases is now easy to find.  The sentencing guidelines can be found here.  Tim’s client had researched the position and was understandably worried about the likelihood of a prison sentence.

Tim spent the time with the client that was needed to ensure she provided him with all of the mitigation relevant to her case.  It became clear that she was particularly vulnerable, and the offence reflected a culmination of various malign factors in her life.

Tim was able to ensure that the Magistrates fully understood the careful mitigation he put forward, and how if affected culpability and the likelihood of re-offending.  In the event, rather than receive a starting point sentence of 12 weeks’ custody, the court dealt with Tim’s client by way of a community order with a rehabilitation element only.  The inevitable disqualification could be reduced if the client undertook the relevant course.

Another prompt testimonial reflects well on Tim’s people skills as well as his advocacy – ‘I wanted to thank you for your support at court this morning. I realise you spend a lot of time in that environment but for me it was a first and last. You helped me through an extremely nerve-racking situation with professionalism and compassion and I wouldn’t hesitate to recommend you to any other person I know should they find themselves in a similar situation. Thank you again.’

Neither client was  financially eligible for Magistrates’ Court legal aid.  Both were able, however,  to afford to be represented by our Mansfield solicitors who made a difference to their cases by way of an agreed and affordable fixed fee.

Options for funding your case can be found here.

If you wish advice and representation for any criminal matter please contact your nearest office.  Mel can be contacted by email here and Tim can be contacted here.