As businesses prepare for Christmas, it is customary to inform clients of seasonal opening hours. For many, it will simply be a case of announcing the days on which the business will be closed, but for us, as criminal defence solicitors, the position is a little more complicated than that owing to the need for emergency legal advice.
We close our offices, but of course we don’t close down our emergency services.
Our offices across the East Midlands will be closed on the following dates:
24 December 2019
25 December 2019
26 December 2019
27 December 2018
31 December 2019
1 January 2020
Emergency legal advice
However, if you need emergency legal advice in relation to a criminal law related issued, at any time of the day or night, we have a team of people to assist.
For example, the Nottingham number is 0115 9599550. You will be able to speak to one of our on call solicitors.
The work of a criminal lawyer does not lend itself to regular working hours, nor is there any time, day or night when we are not available. We offer a level of accessibility that few other professionals can match, and we are immensely proud of that fact.
When arrested on Christmas Day, as some people inevitably will be, we will be there by their side to offer timely legal advice to protect their interests.
Even the criminal courts are open for business during at least part of the festive period, allowing for bail applications and other urgent court business. Again we will provide representation at those hearings.
And of course, those in prison can experience particular difficulties as they are reminded of families far away, also impacted by the trauma of custody.
We take this opportunity to wish all of you a peaceful and restful holiday season, but if for any reason you need us, we will be there at the end of the phone and in person.
All posts by Andrew Wesley/h3>
None for The Road – the Christmas drink drive campaign
With Halloween and Bonfire Night behind us it now won’t be long before Christmas is in our sights and the Christmas party season gets underway. It means that it is now time for the Christmas drink drive campaigns from your local police forces.
We will now all be familiar with the national police initiative that coincides with this time of year. Once again the police will be targeting drink driving. Forces across the country prepare for a spike in the numbers of those tested and arrested for drink driving and drug driving offences. This in part is due to an increase in police patrols dedicated to seeking out drink drivers and part as a result of the time of the year.
The more visible presence is in order to deter those who may think about drinking and driving.
The impact of a drink drive conviction
People may not view these offences as particularly serious when judged against other types of offences. What is not often understood is the very real impact that the consequences of a drink drive conviction can have.
Research shows that the loss of a driving licence leads, in a great many cases, to loss of employment. This in turn can lead to a loss of housing as bills cannot be paid. Sometimes a disqualification from driving could be the final straw that breaks a relationship. The financial costs flowing from a driving ban will be felt for many years thereafter. Insurance premiums will be greatly increased.
Driving the morning after
As experienced road traffic solicitors we also see a great many people who come before the courts with alcohol readings that are not particularly high. This might be where offences have been detected the ‘morning after’. In such cases, offences can be said to have been committed perhaps more out of ignorance than due to a wilful disregard for the safety of others.
A single error of judgment can have devastating consequences.
What is a safe level of drinking if I propose to drive?
No alcohol at all is the safest approach to adopt. It ensures that when a driver gets behind the wheel, their reactions will not be impaired to any degree at all.
Crucially it also prevents the driver getting the guesswork wrong as to how much can be drunk before a person is over the limit. It is this mistake that brings so many people before the courts.
There are urban myths in circulation such as ‘2 pints are ok’. These have long since been proved to be false, as have back of the envelope calculations as to how long it takes alcohol to leave the body. Sleeping of a heavy drinking session will not speed up the rate at which alcohol leaves your body. A big meal may slow down the rate at which you absorb alcohol, but you will end up with the same amount of alcohol in your system.
Different people will deal with alcohol in different ways. This can even vary for one person depending on a multitude of factors. Merely feeling okay to drive is not a reliable indicator as to whether a driver is below the legal limit or not.
As we get merry, we reach a tipping point. We can make foolish choices that will prove costly, sometimes not just measured in financial terms but in injury and even loss of life.
Think, before you drink, before you drive.
You do not hear a lawyer say this often – but we do not wish to see you this Christmas as a result of the Christmas drink drive campaign.
How we can assist with your drink drive case
If you do make a mistake and find yourself in trouble, there is a lot we can do to assist you.
The police must follow complex procedures to establish a case against you. Our lawyers will be able to analyse the evidence to ensure that the procedures have been followed. We can successfully challenge the evidence in your case.
A road traffic solicitor can also investigate issues such as ‘laced drinks’ which can raise the opportunity to avoid disqualification. We will also consider other ‘special reasons’ that could be raised on your behalf. This might include the shortness of distance that was driven.
Legal aid might be available dependent upon your means and the circumstances of your case. Alternatively, you will be able to fund your case through an affordable fixed fee.
Contact one of our drink drive solicitors at your nearest office if you are being investigated by the police or taken to court as a result of the Christmas drink drive campaign. They will, of course, be able to discuss and other driving matters that you face.
Alternatively you can use the contact form below to ask for a call about your case.
Contact
All posts by Andrew Wesley/h3>
In some instances, it is not convenient for a witness to be present in court to give evidence, generally because they live or work some distance away from the court, or some other good reason.
There are legal provisions that cater for this scenario, and while the prosecution widely uses them (notably for police officers), it is vital to remember that the defence can take advantage of the legislation in the same way.
What does the law say about the live link?
Section 51 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 states that a witness (other than the defendant) may, if the court so directs, give evidence through a live link in the following criminal proceedings:
a summary trial,
an appeal to the Crown Court arising out of such a trial,
a trial on indictment,
an appeal to the criminal division of the Court of Appeal,
the hearing of a reference under section 9 or 11 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995 (c. 35),
a hearing before a magistrates’ court or the Crown Court which is held after the defendant has entered a plea of guilty, and
a hearing before the Court of Appeal under section 80 of [the Criminal Justice Act 2003].
Can a defendant give evidence via this provision?
Section 51 does not apply to defendants and is considered somewhat out of date in other respects. In Clark [2015] EWCA Crim 2192 the court observed:
‘That there are idiosyncrasies in the provision of this important aid to the administration of justice does not, in our judgement, befit a modern system of criminal justice. It does not further the overriding objective to deal with cases justly, including being fair to the parties, recognising the rights of defendants, respecting the interests of victims (and, in this case, witnesses) and progressing cases in a manner that is efficient, expeditious and proportionate.
There are clearly circumstances where it may be in the interests of justice for a court to be able to receive evidence by live link from witnesses and defendants for which the existing statutory provisions do not provide. One potential example is a defendant who wishes to give evidence in relation to a minor road traffic offence alleged to have been committed hundreds of miles from his home. There may even be examples where it may be in the interests of justice for a court to be able to receive material by telephone.
When Parliament first began legislating to prescribe the circumstances in which criminal courts could receive evidence by live link, the requisite technology was in its infancy and the courts were not necessarily equipped with the relevant equipment (or technical knowledge). Times have changed; technology has improved and is continually improving. The courts now regularly receive evidence by live link where the statute permits.
In the circumstances, therefore, it may be that Parliament should consider repealing the provisions of primary legislation relating to live links and provide a general authority to the Criminal Procedure Rules Committee to make rules to determine how and in what circumstances the criminal courts may receive evidence. Rules made by the Committee have the benefit of being formulated by representatives of those that have to use them and may be affected by them. They can also be amended with relative speed (for example, where gaps or unintended lacunas come to light) and in order to make best use of emerging technology. That, however, is a matter for Parliament, but, in our judgement, it is a step which requires very serious consideration.’
What factors will the court consider?
A direction may not be given under this section unless the court is satisfied that it is in the interests of the efficient or effective administration of justice for the person concerned to give evidence in the proceedings through a live link.
In deciding whether to give a direction, the court must consider all the circumstances of the case, and those circumstances include in particular:
Those circumstances include in particular:
the availability of the witness,
the need for the witness to attend in person,
the importance of the witness’s evidence to the proceedings,
the views of the witness,
the suitability of the facilities at the place where the witness would give evidence through a live link,
whether a direction might tend to inhibit any party to the proceedings from effectively testing the witness’s evidence.
Section 54 allows the judge to give directions to the jury, if necessary, to ensure that they give the same weight to evidence given through a live link as they would had the evidence been given by the witness in person in court. Advocates in the magistrates’ court should also keep this in mind when making closing submissions.
In some cases, applications for evidence to be given via live link are not appropriate, and we will strenuously object. Where it is in our client’s interest to make such an application, we will ensure that a reasoned and strongly supported application is advanced.
Contact a criminal law solicitor
If you face court proceedings you will wish to instruct one of our solicitors to advise on witness requirements and how witnesses should give evidence. We can make a real difference to the outcome of your case.
We have offices across the East Midlands and will happily travel across the country to provide representation for all football related offences.
VHS Fletchers offices across the East Midlands
Alternatively you can contact us using the form below.
Contact
All posts by Andrew Wesley/h3>
In a case this week involving Jet2 Holidays, Nottingham couple Karl and Laura Hughes claimed that they had suffered sickness while on a package holiday. They said they had food poisoning as a result of eating contaminated food or drink or swimming in the hotel’s unsanitary pool.
In witness statements, Mr and Mrs Hughes said that they became ill on the second day of their holiday and were acutely ill for the remainder of the holiday. The witness statements were sent to Jet2 with an initial letter of claim.
Jet2 looked at the social media accounts of Mr and Mrs Hughes. They saw photos and comments posted by them during the holiday, indicating they were physically well while away and had enjoyed their holiday. As a result, Mr and Mrs Hughes did not start proceedings against the company.
Contempt proceedings even where proceedings not commenced
Jet2 however, decided to ask the court to start contempt of court proceedings against Mr & Mrs Hughes. This was on the basis that the witness statements were false, relying on the social media posts.
Mr & Mrs Hughes denied that the information in their statements was false. They made further statements setting out that they had complained to the hotel manager, and despite their illnesses, they had “put up a front” that they were having a great holiday. The social media posts were not a true reflection of their mood at the time.
Initially, a court decided that proceedings for contempt of court could not be brought as the statements had not been served as part of court proceedings. A higher court did not agree saying that the test was whether the conduct in question involved an interference with the administration of justice either in a particular case or more generally as a continuing process.
The court went on to say that even though Mr and Mrs Hughes had not yet started proceedings when the statements were sent that they were still capable of interfering with the administration of justice.
The issue of whether Mr and Mrs Hughes were in contempt of court has not yet been decided, but Jet2 now have permission to bring those proceedings. The moral of the tale is just because something does not happen “in court” does not mean that you cannot be in “contempt of court”.
What could happen?
If Mr and Mrs Hughes are found guilty of contempt of court, they could be sent to prison for up to 2 years or receive a fine.
It can be very tempting to make a false claim against an insurer, but they are now fighting back in the civil courts. In addition, you could face criminal prosecution for fraud, leading in some cases to a prison sentence and criminal conviction.
Contact a specialist criminal law solicitor
If you are arrested or know that the police wish to speak to you about such a fraud arising from a holiday insurance claim then make sure you insist on your right to free and independent legal advice.
We have offices across the East Midlands and will happily travel across the country to provide representation for all football related offences.
VHS Fletchers offices across the East Midlands
Alternatively you can contact us using the form below.
Contact
All posts by Andrew Wesley/h3>
On 10th March 2001, HRH Prince Andrew is alleged to have met and been photographed with a lady who has accused the Prince of sexual misconduct.
In a BBC interview, Prince Andrew throws ridicule on that suggestion and throws up two interesting observations in an attempt to establish an alibi:
“On that particular day that we now understand is the date, which is 10th March, I was at home, I was with the children and I’d taken Beatrice to a Pizza Express in Woking for a party at I suppose sort of four or five in the afternoon.
“…and then because the duchess was away, we have a simple rule in the family that when one is away the other one is there.”
Understandably, a member of the Royal Family may well remember a trip to Pizza Express, usual for the rest of us, but perhaps not a typical dining arrangement for the privileged few.
Does this stack up as an alibi?
In law, an alibi is defined as follows:
“…evidence tending to show that by reason of the presence of an accused at a particular place or in a particular area at a particular time he was not, or was unlikely to have been, at the place where the offence is alleged to have been committed at the time of its alleged commission.”
The fundamental problem with Prince Andrew’s account is that this alibi can only recover what must have been a relatively short period of time, the journey to and from the restaurant (about 40 mins each way assuming the Prince was at his Windsor home) and time at the party itself (imagine 2 hours), so in total may be no more than 4 hours or so.
Unless the timing of the allegation is such that it corresponds precisely with the time Prince Andrew claims to have been in Woking this alibi will be evidentially of little significance.
The next part of his account is also an alibi and amounts to a not unreasonable claim that he was at home (presumably looking out for the children, although he neglects to say this) because his wife was away.
Again, as a starting point, this is not at all unreasonable, but we have a direct contradiction of accounts and a photograph which has not been established to be anything other than genuine at the moment.
This clash of accounts would need to be tested by a jury in a criminal trial.
In short, mere assertions of alibi tend to be almost worthless. A robust defence strategy would nail down the times, and look for corroborative evidence. A prosecutor might easily find numerous occasions where both family members are away and ask about childcare arrangements – it is by no means unusual for members of the Royal Family to employ staff to look after children.
Regrettably for the Prince, his TV interview established nothing over and above a bare denial, which he had already given. Indeed it appears that other aspects of his account are already being challenged – incapable of sweating and not one to hug.
When our clients come to give an account on such a vital issue such as alibi, we ensure that a robust and detailed case is presented to the court.
When reputation and liberty are at stake, you should leave nothing to chance.
Contact a specialist criminal solicitor
If you are arrested or know that the police wish to speak to you about any offence then make sure you insist on your right to free and independent legal advice.
