Due to many years of under investment the criminal justice system in England and Wales is crumbling.
Things are going wrong at every level and every stage. It’s become a nightmare journey through the system for the accused, for victims and for solicitors alike.
Five problems facing the system
Increasing shortages of criminal duty solicitors
Within five years there could be areas in England and Wales where people who have been arrested won’t be able to access a duty solicitor. This means they won’t be able to get the free legal advice they’re entitled to.
For example, cases in court are often ‘double booked’, so some hearings get cancelled at the last minute. Things like this waste the accused’s and their solicitor’s time, and increase costs.
More and more courts are being closed
Defendants and witnesses are having to make unreasonably long and expensive journeys to court.
Important evidence sometimes isn’t made available until the last minute, or isn’t disclosed at all. This can mean the difference between freedom and imprisonment.
All of these problems show the criminal justice system is at breaking point. Without urgent action, it will fall apart.
For many a day trip to see a football match with friends is about more than the match itself. The journey, banter, songs, food and drink are as important as the match itself in making the day memorable. Sometimes, however, a combination of these factors can lead to our clients coming to the attention of the police. This is where our football law solicitors can help.
Chesterfield crime solicitor Kevin Tomlinson
However just because you are guilty of a crime on a day when you attended a football match does not mean that it is a football related offence. Such an argument might mean that you can avoid a football banning order with the help of our football law solicitors.
The order would ban you from attending all football matches in the UK for a minimum period of three years so their effects are far reaching.
Our client was later on a train travelling from Birmingham to Derby coming home from the game. A complaint was made that he was engaging in disorderly conduct. Police officers became involved and he was described as being drunk and shouting and swearing. It amounted to an offence contrary to Section 5 Public Order Act 1986.
Receipt of a postal requisition
The police did not arrest our client at the time but later tried to arrange a voluntary interview but our client chose not to cooperate. As a result, he simply received a postal requisition notifying him of a court date.
The case was to be heard at Sheffield Magistrates’ Court and he instructed Kevin, a keen football fan himself, to assist.
Guilty plea at Sheffield Magistrates’ Court
Kevin’s client accepted that he was guilty of the offence. As a result, in order to take advantage of the credit available, he pleaded guilty. Mitigation was put forward to persuade the Magistrates’ to impose a conditional discharge. This meant that our client would only be punished if he committed a fresh offence within the next 12 months.
In summary, if the application was successful, Kevin’s client would not have been able to attend any FA football match in the UK for three years. As a result, it is important to instruct expert football law solicitors contest any application.
In order to impose a football banning Order it must be shown that the criminal offence was “football related.” Kevin studied the evidence in the case closely and applied the case law to the circumstances of the case.
He was able to successfully argue that there was no link between the offence his client had pleaded guilty to and the football match his client had been to. As the court agreed with his argument no order was made. Kevin’s client was delighted and could continue to attend football matches without restriction.
Contact one of our football law solicitors
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>
Nottingham based solicitor advocate Graham Heathcote was recently instructed by a client to appeal the imposition of a football banning order imposed at Nottingham Magistrates’ Court.
The History of the case
Solicitor advocate Graham Heathcote
Our client appeared before the Nottingham Youth Court for assaulting a police office in the execution of his duty and assault occasioning actual bodily harm.
This followed an incident at the bar close to Notts County’s Meadow Lane ground. This was prior to the County v Coventry League 2 match.
The bar had chosen not to exclude Coventry City supporters on that day. An hour before the match the police were called to eject some Coventry fans who were being unruly and disruptive. Door staff had been unable to cope with the hostile group in the bar, and a smoke bomb had been let off inside.
Police also entered the terrace area of the bar to eject a male who had been aggressive towards the officers themselves. He complied with a request to leave but our client had client pushed the officer and attempted to strike him.
During the struggle to arrest our client, the officer felt pain in his right finger. It was subsequently found to be broken.
Our client had entered a guilty plea in the Youth Court and as it was his first conviction received a referral order. Unfortunately the court also imposed a football banning order preventing him from attending football matches within the UK.
It did not appear, however, that this was a football related offence and as a result our client decided to appeal the decision to impose the football banning order to Nottingham Crown Court.
Advice and representation at appeal
In order to impose a football banning order it must be shown that the criminal offence was “football related.” The argument in this case was that the incident was unconnected to football. Instead it was an incident that arose upon the police attempting to remove people from a bar.
Upon a close examination of the evidence it was clear that this argument had merit. As a result, Graham Heathcote represented our client at appeal, instructed by litigator Freddie Sail.
The appeal was opposed by the prosecution. The prosecutor maintained, as they had in the Youth Court, that the criteria for a football banning order had been met. As a result it had been properly imposed.
Football banning order removed
Having considered the evidence and Graham’s representations the Crown Court judge and Magistrates agreed. The appeal was successful and the football banning order was removed.
Our client was obviously delighted and could continue to attend football matches unobstructed.
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>
Prior to his sacking, the former Defence Secretary Gavin Williamson suggested a 10-year time limit or Statute of Limitations on the prosecution of soldiers accused of murder during military engagement.
This proposal was in response to reports that British soldiers may face prosecution over deaths during the Northern Ireland troubles in the 1970s and 1980s.
So, what prosecution time limits currently apply in England and Wales?
Offences can be categorised into three groups:
Summary only offences – offences that can only be tried in the magistrates’ court.
Indictable offences (or either-way offences) – offences that may be tried either in the magistrates’ court or the crown court.
Indictable only offences – offences that may only be tried in the crown court.
Summary Only Offences
In general, proceedings must be commenced within six months of the criminal act that is being complained of.
There are however many exceptions to this rule. These exceptions in particular will apply to the following types of offence:
They allow proceedings to be commenced much later, and in some cases as long as three years after the offence was committed, where certain conditions are met.
There is a great deal of case law concerning the calculation of time limits and it is common to see offences commenced in breach of the rules. When these breaches are identified this will bring the prosecution to a halt.
With the new Single Justice Procedure for road traffic, railway and other offences we can see an alarming number of cases being charged in breach of statutory time limits.
If you have any doubts then please check with us immediately.
All other cases
In relation to indictable and indictable only cases the starting point is that there is no time limit in bringing the prosecution.
It is very common to see offences, particularly sexual offences, prosecuted a great many years after the events complained of.
Alleged historical sexual and other offences can create significant difficulties for defendants so many years after the alleged events. It can, for example, make defences such as alibi all the more difficult to establish.
As time passes witness memory and recollection will fade. False accounts can seem true. Mistakes in memory will be made. Important evidence can disappear.
The response of the Court of Appeal to these defence complaints is that they are a ‘matter for the jury’. The trial judge can deal with them by directions to the jury as to the problems created. A jury should only convict if it is sure.
What can the defence do?
Wherever possible we will look to explore other appropriate avenues at trial to redress the balance.
This may take the form of an application to exclude evidence. Alternatively, in some cases, an application can be made to bring the case to a halt. This is called ‘staying proceedings’. To continue to allow the prosecution would amount to an ‘abuse of process’.
Is an abuse of process argument easy to win?
Unfortunately an abuse of process argument is notoriously difficult to win. This leads many to believe that they are therefore mostly pointless. As a result, many won’t bother to make them at all.
This is not a strategy that we believe in, and we will always advance arguments where there is a prospect of success.
In Attorney-General’s Reference (No 1 of 1990) [1992] QB 630 the court held:
“Firstly, it is for the defence to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court and should, therefore, be stayed.
Secondly, stays of proceedings in such circumstances should be the exception rather than the rule, and where the application for a stay is based on delay a stay should be an exception rather than the rule even if the stay could be said to be unjustifiable. Still more rarely should a stay be imposed in the absence of any fault on the part of the complainant. No stay should be imposed unless the defendant shows, on the balance of probabilities, that because of the delay he will suffer serious prejudice to the extent that no fair trial can be held.
The third proposition of law that seems to me to arise from the authorities is that the judge considering an application to stay of this kind may have regard to his powers to exclude evidence, to give appropriate directions to the jury about the delay, and in particular to give directions to the jury about the difficulties which the delay has presented to the defence.
The fourth relevant proposition of law, as it seems to me, is that the judge may also take into account the extent to which a prosecution case depends on contemporaneous documents. The more it does so, the more difficult it will be for a defendant to establish that an indictment will be stayed.
Fifthly, where delay results from the reticence of an alleged victim in reporting an allegation of sexual abuse, one is entitled to adopt an understanding attitude towards the difficulties that can be encountered by such witnesses in making complaints about sexual abuse.”
A seemingly more liberal approach was taken in R (Flaherty) v City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court [2008] where a delay of 2 years due to the inactivity of the prosecution during enforcement proceedings was held to amount to an abuse of process.
Separately in Ali v CPS [2007] a delay of 7 years was sufficient to support a stay for abuse where documentary evidence pertinent to the complainant’s credibility had been lost.
Instruct a specialist in criminal law
We can begin to advise you as to the potential effect of delay in your case as early as in your interview with the police. We cannot stress enough that our legal advice and representation is always free to you if you are interviewed. This remains true whether you are under arrest or being interviewed voluntarily.
Our specialist criminal lawyers can advise you on whether you have a defence, and help you put that defence forward, which may be particularly difficult where a number of years have passed. We will advise you on the prospects of success and instructing any experts that may 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.
A recent news story about the Gosport War Memorial Hospital highlighted the importance of pharmacists and their regulated staff seeking independent legal advise if being interviewed by the police.
The inquiry findings are being considered by the CPS and they will decide whether or not the police should instigate any investigation.
This decision following the inquiry highlights the very difficult position that pharmacists can find themselves in. The report reminds us of the case that involved Dr Harold Shipman which led to subsequent proceedings before the Royal Pharmaceutical Society by pharmacist Ghislaine Brant.
Questions raised about pharmacists’ actions
The media have been quick to raise questions as to the actions of the pharmacy staff at the Gosport War Memorial Hospital. They have queried the role that they may have played in the dispensing and supply of the high level of painkillers apparently featuring in this case. The suggestion has been made that the pharmacists employed at the time showed little regard for the supply of controlled drugs to patients.
Whilst this is clearly a tragic situation, it should not be forgotten that pharmacists are professional people undertaking extremely important work on behalf of the community. They respond to prescriptions received from doctors and make judgements prior to their decision to dispense and supply medications based on the limited information before them.
Some years down the line it may be difficult to see what, if any, documentary evidence exists to help the pharmacist explain their actions at the time. This obviously makes matters more difficult for a pharmacist to defend.
In such circumstances legal advice will make a significant difference to the outcome of a case.
Free and Independent legal advice is available for pharmacists
Cases alleging criminal liability against pharmacists or their staff are always likely to be complex and require sensitivity as there will often have been a death.
Our specialist lawyers can advise you on the evidence in the case, whether you have a defence, and help you put that defence forward. We will be able to advise you on the prospects of success and navigating a successful path through what can be a long and stressful investigation and court process. We will also be mindful of the potential regulatory impact of any adverse finding in your case. We are able to provide you with advice in relation to such proceedings.
As a result, if you are a pharmacist and are arrested or know that the police wish to speak to you on a voluntary basis about any criminal offence then make sure you insist on your right to free and independent legal advice.
