It doesn’t matter if you support a Football team that is winning trophies each year, or a team simply trying to avoid relegation. The exhilaration of a last minute equaliser, or if you are really lucky a last minute winner, is simply indescribable.
Unfortunately, that 30 seconds of exhilaration could be cut short if your actions result in you being drawn to the attention of the police if your celebrations have gone too far.
For those who didn’t follow Chesterfield Town closely during the 2018-2019 league season, it is fair to say it wasn’t its finest year.
In this particular match, Chesterfield had gone 3-0 down to the away team after only 45 minutes. Slowly the Spireites found their feet and clawed back two goals before time added on.
In the 93rd minute Will Evans scored an equaliser to square the game and complete the comeback.
Like many of the 4123 fans in attendance our client, a Chesterfield Town fan, was elated with the goal. So overwhelmed was he by the turnaround he ran on to the pitch with others to celebrate with the Chesterfield Town players.
After the Match
The police were in attendance at the game and had recorded the celebrations of the fans. They subsequently contacted our client to arrange a voluntary interview. He had the good sense to contact Ben for his expert free and independent legal advice in this interview.
The allegation our client faced was that he had committed an offence under sections 4 and 5 of the Football (Offences) Act 1991 by entering the field of play. Although it is possible for a suspect to raise a defence, they must have lawful authority or excuse to be on the pitch, and must prove that this is the case.
Guilty plea at Chesterfield Magistrates’ Court
Chesterfield football law solicitor Ben Strelley
Football law solicitor Ben Strelley attended court with his client. He was unable to put forward a defence to the charge so pleaded guilty at the first possible opportunity. This would afford him full credit for his plea.
Although this offence would not usually attract a prison sentence, our client had committed this offence during the currency of a suspended sentence order. This means that there was a real risk that this offence would trigger the activation of the suspended sentence. To avoid this, Ben would have to argue successfully that to activate the sentence would be unjust.
Ben spent the time necessary with his client to be able to provide detailed, structured personal mitigation on behalf of his client. This resulted in his client avoiding what might have seemed an inevitable prison sentence. Instead the suspended sentence was varied and he was ordered to undertake 40 hours of additional unpaid work as well as a fine for the new offence.
A football banning order was also imposed. Sometimes it is impossible to mount a successful opposition to these applications! Nonetheless, our client was delighted with the outcome and the fact that he had kept his freedom due to Ben’s expert advice and representation.
Expert representation for a football related offence
If you are arrested or know that the police wish to speak to you about a football related offence 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>
The Law Society has published data which shows a looming crisis in the numbers of criminal duty solicitors working in England and Wales right now. In the future, many individuals will be left unable to access their right to a solicitor and free advice within a reasonable time, if at all.
Criminal duty solicitors – a dying breed?
Criminal duty solicitors like those at VHS Fletchers offer a vital public service. Any individual detained by the police has a right to a solicitor and this advice will always be free of charge under our legal aid contract with the government. This remains the case at any time of day, and regardless of wealth, age or nationality.
The mean average age of a criminal duty solicitor across the whole of England and Wales is now 47, and in many regions the average age is even higher.
The Law Society data highlights that in 5 to 10 years’ time there could be insufficient criminal duty solicitors in many regions, leaving individuals in need of legal advice unable to access justice.
This could have a catastrophic effect on the criminal justice system, as members of the profession retire and leave a shortage of experienced practitioners. This will impact on both access to justice and on valuable police time.
One explanation for these shortages is because criminal defence solicitors have received no fee increase since 1998. Instead, fees have been reduced and removed. Inflation has led to a significant real terms reduction. Combined with other cuts to the system including court closures, many lawyers no longer see a viable career doing this work. It is difficult to attract and retain new members of the profession.
The Law Society campaign
The Law Society is therefore calling on the Government to conduct an economic review of the long-term viability of the criminal legal aid system and to guarantee that criminal legal aid fees will rise with inflation.
A recent case dealt with before Lincoln Crown Court alleged to involved football related violence demonstrated the ability of the expert team at VHS Fletchers to work together to secure an excellent outcome for our clients.
The case involved our team representing four clients who were part of a brawl on Lincoln High Street on the day that Lincoln City played Chesterfield Town. An important question was to be whether this was football related violence or not?
The circumstances of the offending
Police were called towards the end of the afternoon to a large fight taking place on Lincoln High Street. Around 20 males were fighting using street furniture, chairs and even metal crowd gates as weapons. These items were being thrown between the opposing parties without consideration for those not involved. Shoppers included the elderly and children who were forced to flee the violence.
How were our clients identified?
After the incident the police took steps to try and identify those involved in the offending. Lincolnshire police ask their Derbyshire colleagues to view CCTV footage and photographs. There were also national press releases. As a result, seven of those involved were prosecuted for the incident.
VHS Fletchers were instructed by four of those involved in the violence. They received our expert legal advice on both the charge of violent disorder and the football banning order applications that might follow.
Charges of violent disorder
All of the defendants were originally charged with an allegation of violent disorder. This offence carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison. Prison is usually inevitable for this charge, even on a guilty plea.
Once the case was transferred to Lincoln Crown Court we began negotiations with the prosecution to see whether a lesser charge of affray would be acceptable. These discussions were successful and as a result charges of affray were substituted instead. Although serious, the maximum sentence for affray is one of three years.
Our clients had always accepted that they were in the wrong, but it was important that they faced the correct charge and one that allowed an opportunity to avoid an immediate custodial sentence. Once the charges were amended, all four of our clients pleaded guilty.
The evidence provided was overwhelming and therefore each client was advised to enter a guilty plea knowing that there was a substantial risk of a custodial sentence.
Once we advanced mitigation on behalf of our clients, the Crown Court judge imposed a suspended prison sentence with unpaid work and financial penalties.
Had the application been successful our clients would not have been able to attend any FA match in the UK for a minimum of 3 years with additional conditions attached.
A pre-condition for imposing a football banning order is that this offence be football related violence. Having studied the evidence closely, and knowing the relevant case law in great detail, our team led by solicitor advocate Kevin Tomlinson drafted legal argument to serve on the court and prosecution.
Not football related violence
This showed through the evidence that there was no link between this offence and the football match. Instead, our clients had been in Lincoln coincidentally and had no tickets for the match or intention to go. As a result, affray was not football related violence.
The court agreed and refused the application made by the prosecution in relation to all of our clients. Our clients were understandably delighted as they could attend football matches without restriction if they wished.
Contact one of our Football law specialists
If you are arrested or know that the police wish to speak to you about a football related offence 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>
We have previously posted articles about our clients who have been unfortunate enough to be charged with allegations of possession of disguised weapons that, on conviction, will attract a minimum 5 year sentence. This is often a surprise to the client, and we have had to work particularly hard to avoid an immediate prison sentence.
Examples involving disguised weapons can be found here and here.
New guidance has been issued by the prosecution as to when it is appropriate to charge the offence that attracts the minimum 5 year sentence.
It had been hoped that this change would have assisted those found in possession of a combination torch and stun gun. Unfortunately, this is not the case. The charging standards have only been relaxed where, for example, as stun gun has been disguised as another weapon.
The charging guidance now contains the following:
Note on Disguised Weapons
“Firearms which are disguised as another object (such as stun guns disguised as torches or mobile phones or other innocent objects) are prohibited weapons contrary to section 5(1)(b) and 5(1A)(a). The latter attracts a mandatory minimum sentence; the former does not.
Where a stun gun is disguised as another weapon, prosecutors should always charge section 5(1)(b) unless any significant aggravating feature, as identified by R v Avis [1988] 1 Cr App R 420 CA is present. The factors in Avis are:
• What (if any) use has been made of the firearm?
• With what intention (if any) did the defendant possess or use the firearm?
• What is the defendant’s record?
Unless a significant aggravating feature is present, the mandatory minimum sentence may be arbitrary and disproportionate. Where section 5(1)(b) is charged, the Court may still pass a significant sentence. However, it can exercise its discretion at sentence where there is an absence of aggravating features which do not merit charging an offence attracting a mandatory minimum sentence.
[Additionally] Prosecutors should note that where a stun gun is disguised as another weapon, section 5(1)(b) should be charged, absent any use or intended use of the stun gun, or the commission or alleged commission at the same time or recently of other relevant offences’”.
“…The fact that the disguised stun gun in question is of limited power is not a reason for charging the lesser offence – R v McCarthy [2013] EWCA Crim. 2500.”
Note on dual purpose objects
Prosecutors should be alert to the defence contention that an object has a dual purpose and, therefore, is not a disguised firearm.
Where a case involves a dual purpose object (for example, a combined torch and stun gun), unless it is immediately apparent that an object contains a firearm, then it is a disguised weapon and should be charged as such, (section 5(1A) Firearms Act 1968). Failure to do so would deprive the judge of all available sentencing options, including the minimum sentence.
Prosecutors should liaise with the officer in connection with a defendant’s basis of plea in all cases involving objects described as ‘dual purpose’.
The charging standards make clear that there can be flexibility in whether a charge attracting a minimum sentence is brought by the prosecution. Experience of negotiating on offence and plea is an important skill that we are able to bring to your case.
As a result it is best to take advantage of our free and independent legal advice in police interview as it is easier for us to make a difference in your case if instructed at an early stage.
Even in cases where you haven’t instructed us in the police station, we will still be happy to receive your instructions after interview or if the case proceeds to court.
Again, legal aid is likely to be available for your court case and we will advise you fully about all of your funding options.
Imagine the unimaginable – you have been convicted of a crime that you didn’t commit!
Your trial lawyers have told you that there is no hope of an appeal. You can’t afford more legal advice from a criminal law specialist so you decide to look for a cheaper alternative.
McKenzie friends – cheaper and just as effective?
Surely there must be someone who can help? Perhaps that friend from university who studied law? Or someone who’s website says they are “cheaper than a solicitor or barrister, but just as effective”?
Mr Wright was injured in 2004 when three plastic bags were left inside him during an operation. He hired a “McKenzie Friend”, George Rusz, to support him during his claim. He ended up with only £20,000 in damages from the NHS.
To make matters worse he had to pay £75,000 in costs to the NHS because of the incompetent way Mr Rusz had conducted the case. This meant that despite winning he had to pay out £55,000.
Fortunately, Mr Wright recovered those costs and the damages he should have received had his case been dealt with properly after he sued Mr Rusz for giving negligent advice. He was awarded £336,759 in total. This finally came fifteen years after his injuries.
There is a risk that he may be out of pocket a lot longer. If Mr Rusz can’t, or won’t, pay it could be years before he sees the money, if ever.
The consequences of poor and unregulated advice
If you were to use a McKenzie Friend, or any unqualified person, in conducting a criminal appeal the consequences might be worse than a financial loss. The Court of Appeal has the power to order, in appeals without merit, that some time already served should not count towards your sentence. You may also face a hefty claim for prosecution costs.
McKenzie Friends may have a legitimate and useful purpose when they stick to their original purpose and role – providing moral support, taking notes, and giving advice in court – and do it competently.
Before instructing a person to assist with your case you will want to ensure that they are properly regulated and insured to avoid the problems created for Mr Wright. If in doubt, check it out.
Choose to instruct a specialist in criminal law and proceedings
A common misconception that may drive potential clients towards the use of McKenzie friends is publicity about legal costs and the availability of legal aid.
VHS Fletchers – Specialist criminal solicitors
We cannot stress enough that our legal advice and representation is always free to you if you are interviewed by the police. This remains true whether you are under arrest or having a voluntary interview.
Our specialist criminal lawyers can advise you on whether you have a defence, and help you put that defence forward, advising on prospects of success and instructing experts to help along the way.
As a result, if you are arrested or know that the police wish to speak to you about a criminal offence then make sure you insist on your right to free and independent legal advice.
In a case involving an advice on appeal from the Crown Court legal aid may be available to provide initial advice and take the matter forward where there are arguable grounds.
