Ben Stokes is the England cricketer who was charged with affray and acquitted by a jury.
But the video showed him hitting someone?
It did, his defence was that he was acting in self-defence, you can hit someone and still be not guilty of an offence in certain circumstances.
Why did the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) charge him then?
It is not for the CPS to decide whether or not a person is guilty, its role is to assess whether there is a reasonable prospect of conviction, if there is sufficient evidence to proceed and it is in the public interest to do so.
In this case, the issue was for the court or jury to decide whether or not he was acting in self-defence or of another.
How does a jury make their decision?
Jurors are not allowed to discuss their deliberations with anyone outside of the jury room, so we can never know what discussions took place.
The Judge provided them with a “route to verdict” document which sets out the questions that the jury needed to ask themselves before coming to a verdict.
What was the “route to verdict”?
Did Ben Stokes use, or threaten violence towards another? If no, not guilty, if yes move to the next question.
Did he genuinely believe that it was necessary to use or threaten that violence so as to defend himself and/or another?
If yes, was the force reasonable in the circumstances he perceived them to be? If it was, then the verdict is not guilty.
If no, move to the next question.
Was the conduct of all of them, taken together, such as would cause a person of reasonable firmness present at the scene to fear for his personal safety? If yes, the verdict is guilty, if no or it may not have been, the verdict is not guilty.
What is reasonable?
The jury was given further guidance that only the use of reasonable force can be lawful.
A person who genuinely thinks he or another is about to be attacked may react on the spur of the moment. He cannot realistically be expected to weigh up precisely how much force he needs to use to defence himself or that other person.
If he has done what he honestly and instinctively thought was necessary, then that would be strong evidence that it was reasonable. On the other hand, using force out of all proportion to what he genuinely anticipated might happen to him or another, then that would be unreasonable.
How can our expert criminal solicitors help?
We will be able to give you advice as to the strength of the evidence in public order offences, the availability of defences and likely sentence upon conviction. You will always be helped by seeking this advice at the earliest possible opportunity.
As a result, if you are arrested for a public order offence or know that the police wish to speak to you about an offence of then make sure you insist on your right to free and independent legal advice.
In this case, Ben Stokes elected to be dealt with at the Crown Court rather than the Magistrates’ Court, we can advise you on the options available to you and the consequences of those options.
Contact
Category Archives: News
The Sentencing Council has published a new guideline for how those guilty of child cruelty offences should be sentenced. It covers three offences:
cruelty to a child;
causing or allowing a child to die or suffer serious physical harm; and
failing to protect a girl from the risk of female genital mutilation (FGM).
Sentencing Council member Mrs Justice Maura McGowan said:
“Child cruelty offences vary greatly. They can range from a one-off lapse of care which puts a child at risk of harm to a campaign of deliberate cruelty which leads to serious injury or even death. This new guideline will help ensure sentences that reflect what the offender has done and the harm to the child. It states for example that cases involving very significant force, or multiple incidents of serious cruelty should always be treated as being in the highest category of culpability. The guideline will also assist sentencers in cases where the offender has also been the victim of abuse from another.”
When does the guideline come in to force?
The sentencing guideline for child cruelty offences applies to all cases sentenced on or after 1 January 2019. This means that cases charged before that date may be affected by the changes if there is to be a sentence after that date.
Does it apply to all offences of causing harm to a child?
No, it doesn’t.
When someone is prosecuted for harming a child, the offence charged will vary according to the circumstances. It is important to distinguish the offences in this guideline from other offences that may be charged, such as assault, murder and manslaughter.
There are also cases in which a child is harmed and one person is charged with assault and another with allowing the child to suffer serious physical harm.
Publication of the guideline marks the first time that there has been sentencing guidance for the offences of causing or allowing a child to die or suffer serious physical harm and failing to protect a girl from the risk of FGM.
The sentencing guideline also provides revised guidance for the offence of cruelty to a child. This replaces the earlier guidance issued in 2008.
Child cruelty offences are complex and can vary greatly. As a result the guideline has been designed to assist with an effective assessment of each case that comes before the courts to help ensure consistent and proportionate sentencing.
Some offenders may be incompetent parents, while others may deliberately inflict harm on children in their care. Child cruelty offences could include parents or guardians leaving children home alone, neglecting them or putting them at risk through alcohol or drug abuse or subjecting them to sustained and deliberate ill-treatment and violence that leads to serious injury or death.
Offences can also involve a parent or guardian having failed to act to protect their child from ill-treatment by someone else in the household, which can be due to them being victims of violence and intimidation from the same person themselves.
Is there anything new in the approach to sentencing?
In assessing harm to victims, as well as physical and psychological harm, the guidelines for child cruelty offences take into account for the first time the developmental and/or emotional harm that such offences can cause to a victim. This may for example be manifested in developmental milestones that a child has not met.
The guidelines also introduce a new aggravating factor of an offender blaming others for an offence. This is because such cases will frequently involve one parent or carer/guardian seeking to blame the other for what happened in order to avoid prosecution.
Another factor that has been added that indicates high culpability is where the “offender [has] professional responsibility for the victim” to indicate that culpability is higher in those rare cases where, for example a teacher or sports coach abuses one of the children in their care.
The guidelines also contain, for the first time, additional guidance for the court in considering whether to impose custody in cases where the offender has parental responsibility and is sole or primary carer for the victim and other children.
In these cases, the court is reminded to consider the impact which a custodial sentence for the offender would have on the victim and whether this is proportionate to the seriousness of the offence. This will be particularly relevant in lower culpability cases where the offender has otherwise been a loving and capable parent or carer.
Cruelty to a child
The offence of cruelty to a child is broad in its form and severity. Cases may be sentenced in the magistrates’ courts or Crown Court and involve ill-treatment and assault, neglect, abandonment, and failure to protect a child.
In the vast majority of cases the offender is usually the parent or guardian of the victim but it could apply to others entrusted with the care of a child. Many of these offences are at the lower end of severity, including low levels of neglect and cases where there is a risk of harm but no harm actually comes to the child.
The new guideline sets out proportionate sentencing levels to cover the wide range of situations that the courts deal with. One offence could involve someone who is an otherwise good parent putting a child at risk through a one-off lapse of care, while another could involve a parent guilty of a campaign of cruelty involving serious violence and sadistic behaviour that leads to a child suffering serious physical or psychological harm.
Causing or allowing a child to die or suffer serious physical harm
The main purpose of the legislation for this offence is that it can be prosecuted in instances where a child has died or suffered serious physical harm as a result of an unlawful act, such as an assault, by a member of the household but there is not enough evidence to prove which of the defendants committed the act. They may both blame each other.
In such cases before the introduction of this legislation, neither defendant could be found guilty of murder, manslaughter or assault and so nobody would be held accountable. The guideline reflects the aims of the legislation, including for example the aggravating factor of an offender blaming others for the offence.
This offence can also be used in its own right, for example if someone in the household is charged with the murder or manslaughter of a child, another member may be convicted of causing/allowing death, if it can be proved that they foresaw, or should have foreseen, that their co-defendant would commit an unlawful act which risked serious physical harm to the child.
There are very low volumes of offenders sentenced for this offence, due to the fact that where a child has been killed, those responsible are likely to be charged with murder or manslaughter, and where the child was badly injured, a serious assault charge would normally be brought.
Failing to protect a girl from the risk of Female Genital Mutilation
This offence is committed when a parent or carer of a girl under 16 allows FGM to take place unless they can show that they were not aware of such a risk and reasonably could not have been expected to be, or that they took reasonable steps in order to protect the girl.
The issue of FGM has been of growing concern within Parliament and the public and so the Council is keen to provide a clear approach to ensure consistent and appropriate sentencing when offenders are convicted.
The guideline takes into account the psychological impact these offences can have on victims and acknowledges that by their very nature, all offences of FGM carry an inherent level of harm.
How our criminal law solicitors can help defend child cruelty offences
We will be able to give you advice as to the strength of the evidence in child cruelty offences, the availability of defences and likely sentence upon conviction. You will always be helped by seeking this advice at the earliest possible opportunity.
As a result, if you are arrested or know that the police wish to speak to you about an offence of then make sure you insist on your right to free and independent legal advice.
We have previously written about the increase in prosecutions over recent years where there is no statement from the alleged victim in the case. The victim might not be supporting the prosecution or may even be unknown. This will lead to arguments over the admissability of evidence.
The reasoning is that even though a victim is unwilling to assist the Prosecution, a person should not be able to avoid responsibility for offending that they have committed. Of course, there are a number of risks to proceeding without evidence from the person who ought to know best what, if anything, happened.
Prosecution rely on principle of Res Gestae
In order to present such cases the prosecution will often rely on a rule of evidence called Res Gestae. This allows hearsay evidence that would usually not be allowed in court to be used as admissable evidence.
Unfortunately we have noted that the prosecution seek to rely on this exception to the usual rules of evidence in a number of cases where it doesn’t apply.
As a result it is vital to have an experienced solicitor who is able to argue your case in Court to try and avoid this from taking place.
Recent case defended by Chesterfield crime solicitor
Chesterfield Crime Solicitor Kevin Tomlinson was recently presented with such a scenario. His experience told him that the prosecution was trying to admit evidence in circumstances where it was not admissible.
His skill and expertise as an advocate persuaded the Magistrates that he was right. The evidence was ruled inadmissible and his client was found not guilty.
Domestic violence allegations
Kevin’s client faced charges of common assault and criminal damage within a domestic setting. Police officers attended the alleged victim who gave an account implicating stating that our client was responsible for the offending.
She alleged that he had been aggressive and threatening towards her when she returned home with a friend after a night out. After the friend left he had then assaulted her in the bedroom and caused damage to a wall and perfume bottle.
The police had obtained a recording of the 999 call. The initial complaint had also been recorded on police bodycam footage. Finally she made a written witness statement. Here friend had also made a statement describing our client’s behaviour before she left.
During the course of the investigation, the complainant had provided a further statement stating that she no longer supported the prosecution and wished to withdraw her complaint.
From the outset of the case our client had set out a defence. He told the police that he had not done what was alleged against him and was therefore not guilty of the offences.
Key witness did not attend the trial
In light of the later statement taken from the complainant it was not surprising that the complainant failed to attend Court for the trial. The supporting witness also failed to attend.
Despite this, the prosecutor informed Kevin that they wished to proceed with the case. They intended to use the account provided by the complainant in the 999 call as well as what she told the police upon their arrival. The reasoning was that this evidence would be admissable using res gestae.
Kevin argued against the admissability of evidence relating to these allegations. The key requirement, that the witness was so overcome with circumstances of the situation that she could not have made the allegations up, did not exist in this case. She was calm during both the call and the conversation. The assertion that the allegation could not have been made up did not stand up to scrutiny.
Additionally, Kevin was able to argue that instead of trying to admit evidence in this way the prosecution, who had known for weeks that the witness did not intend to attend Court, should have taken the appropriate steps to have her there. The doctrine of Res Gestae should not be used to avoid calling witnesses as it prevents the prosecution challenging the evidence.
Not guilty verdict after trial
Kevin’s argument found favour with the Court who refused the Crown’s application meaning the Prosecution had no option but to offer no evidence against Kevin’s client.
Had the defendant in this case been unrepresented it might be unlikely that they would effectively challenge the admissability of evidence of this nature and the outcome could have been very different.
Instruct an solicitor who is an expert in the admissability of evidence.
Criminal trials will always feature a certain level of complexity. The best way to prepare for trial is to seek legal advice at the earliest possible moment.
If you are arrested or know that the police wish to speak to you about an offence of then make sure you insist on your right to free and independent legal advice.
Agent provocateur is French for “inciting agent”, an entrapment situation where a person is enticed, incited or encouraged into committing an offence that he would not have otherwise committed.
How does it relate to criminal law?
The police frequently use undercover police officers in relation to drugs offences. An officer becomes familiar with local drug users and suppliers, and evidence for supply-related offending is obtained.
If the officer asks the suspect for drugs is he an agent provocateur, is he an “inciting agent”?
Some people would try to argue he is and that they wouldn’t have committed the offence unless he had asked them. The difference is between the officer causing the offending and merely providing an opportunity for it to be committed with the officer rather than someone else.
What have the courts said, and is entrapment a defence?
Entrapment is not a defence, but it could be argued that the case should not be brought at all.
This would involve a consideration as to the degree of persuasion, the gravity of the offence. The question of exclusion of evidence may also arise.
In the case of Shannon it was said that if there is good reason to question the credibility of the evidence given, then the judge may conclude that the evidence should be excluded.
Two leading cases involved the supply of drugs to an undercover police officer. “L” argued that he had been lured into the supply.
The Court held that it would be acceptable if officers were to provide a person with an unexceptional opportunity to commit a crime and the person then freely took advantage of that opportunity.
The situation would be quite different and would be an abuse of process if officers instigated an offence by offering inducements and luring a person into a course of action he would not normally have followed.
In “G’s” case the actions of the officers, by contrast, were said to go beyond those of undercover agents as they instigated the offence, there was no evidence to suggest that without their intervention it would have been committed.
In a case involving an undercover journalist (Shannon v UK), it was said that an offender was not entrapped when he supplied drugs to the journalist as he had not been placed under any pressure to do so.
Do undercover officers have rules to follow?
There is an Undercover Operations Code of Practice issued jointly by all UK police authorities and HM Customs and Excise.
Contact one of our criminal law solicitors to discuss issues of entrapment.
We are experts at assessing evidence and putting forward legal arguments. We can advise you as to whether entrapment applies to your case or not.
As a result, if you are arrested or know that the police wish to speak to you about an offence of then make sure you insist on your right to free and independent legal advice.
Allegations of supplying drugs or possessing them with intent to supply are more serious than simply possessing the drugs. Such allegations are likely to lead to lengthy custodial sentences.
What drugs are illegal to supply?
It is an offence to supply a controlled drug. This includes the ones that will immediately spring to mind such as heroin, cocaine, cannabis and amphetamine. It also includes what are called Class B and C drugs such as steroids, khat and ketamine. Some of these may be lawful to possess but not supply.
What is meant by supply?
The word “supply” is to be given its everyday meaning. Buying drugs on behalf of a group of people and handing them out, even for no profit, is still supply.
Handing drugs to someone else for safe-keeping may not be supply (although even that is not clear cut), but if that person holds the drugs intending to return them to the first person, he may be guilty of possession with intent to supply.
The law relating to possession of drugs is some of the most complicated criminal law on the statute book.
How does the prosecution prove an intent to supply?
The easiest way to prove this is by an admission of intent. Other ways include an assessment of the circumstances in which the drugs are held and the circumstances and behaviour of the alleged offender.
The quantity of drugs, possession of cash, drugs paraphernalia, “tick lists” or debtors’ lists, and phone records and messaging recovered from mobile phones will all be considered.
If there is insufficient evidence of an intent to supply the prosecution may accept a plea to simple possession.
What about proving possession?
To have an intent to supply you also have to be in possession of the drug. A person has in his possession anything which is in his physical custody or under his control. You need to have knowledge of the drugs, but you do not necessarily have to have them in your pocket or vehicle.
What sentences are given out for supplying drugs?
The maximum sentence for Class A drugs is life, for Class B and C it is 14 years imprisonment.
If an adult defendant has two or more convictions for a Class A drug trafficking offence, a seven-year minimum sentence applies, unless it is unjust to impose such sentence.
The offence is aggravated for adults if the offence is committed on or in the vicinity of school premises at a relevant time. A relevant time is when the premises are in use by persons aged under 18 or within one hour of the start or end of such time.
The offence is also aggravated if a courier under the age of 18 is used in the commission of the offence.
The sentencing court will use the specific sentencing guidelines for drug offences. Those involved in the supply of Class A drugs are more likely to receive custodial sentences. The Court will consider factors such as quantities, the role played, whether it is street dealing or a commercial enterprise, financial gain and, as always, credit is given for a guilty plea.
Drugs offences attract some of the lengthiest prison sentences handed out in our courts.
Instruct criminal solicitors experienced in defending allegations of supplying drugs.
As you can see such offending is treated seriously by the courts so it will be important that you seek early advice from a criminal law solicitor.
We assess the evidence on your behalf, advise you as to plea and can give you an indication of likely sentence if convicted. There are a number of possible defences available that we will consider.
As a result, if you are arrested or know that the police wish to speak to you about an offence of supplying drugs then make sure you insist on your right to free and independent legal advice.
Local newspapers will often publicise cases that have been before local Magistrates’ Courts. It will often seem that the sentences handed out in some cases are entirely disproportionate to the offences that vulnerable defendants have been convicted of. This may be due to circumstances that we are unaware of, or because of a particularly harsh sentencing bench, or because the defendants appeared unrepresented before the court.
Such severe sentences are not inevitable. At a recent Saturday morning court, Nottingham partner and crime solicitor Nick Walsh was able to secure constructive disposals for two of his vulnerable clients.
Serial shop lifter receives conditional discharge
Nick’s first client was charged with five shop thefts with a total value of £760. The evidence was strong and he had made admissions with the benefit of our free and independent legal advice in police interview.
He had a long history of offending and had been to prison four times in the last two years. He had only been released from custody shortly before the new offending.
Nottingham Magistrates’ Court
Due to his vulnerabilities he was very volatile when Nick spoke to him. He was a long standing client of Nottingham crime solicitor Graham Heathcote and initially only wanted Graham to represent him. At one stage he intended to go into court unrepresented if Graham could not deal with his case.
Nick’s manner is such that he was able to calm him down and take instructions about the miserable circumstances that he had endured since release from prison. He had remained homeless, and as a result of sleeping rough had suffered abuse and assaults.
Despite the number of offences and his record of convictions Nick was able to persuade the Magistrates to deal with him by way of a conditional discharge.
Vulnerable drug user sentenced to community order
The second of Nick’s vulnerable clients on that morning was a female charged with several thefts, possession of heroin and breach of her post release supervision.
She had received two custodial sentences for thefts within the nine months prior to this offending. Before that she had the benefit of other community orders that involved Drug Rehabilitation Requirements. All of these interventions had failed.
Fortunately Nick was able to speak with the duty probation officer. As a result of that discussion, Nick was able to mitigate and persuade the Magistrates that his client ought to be given a further opportunity to comply with a community order. A further Drug Rehabilitation Requirement was imposed without the need for a pre-sentence report from the probation service.
Choose the right solicitor for your case
As we have a contract with the government to permit us to provide expert legal advice and representation under the legal aid scheme. This means that our advice in the police station will always be free of charge to you in the police station.
Many of our vulnerable clients will be also be entitled to legal aid in the Magistrates’ Court. Nearly all will be eligible for legal aid to ensure representation for cases before the Crown Court.
There has been much ado in the press about police forces undertaking random checks on motorists and revoking licences at the roadside on the basis of a vision test. So, what are their powers?
Can the police stop me?
Under section 163 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 a police officer in uniform has the power to require a driver of a vehicle on a road to stop. It is an offence to fail to comply with such a request.
Does the officer have to be in uniform?
To use this power the officer has to be in uniform. There is a common law power, however, for an officer not in uniform to request a vehicle to stop although there would be no penalty for failing to comply.
What is the law about vision and driving?
You must be able to read a registration plate from 20 metres (approximately five car lengths). It is an offence to drive with uncorrected defective eyesight.
Can the police ask me to do a roadside eye test?
You could be asked to undertake the test voluntarily. Otherwise, there must be a suspicion that you may be guilty of driving when you cannot comply with the vision test requirement. If the officer does suspect, you can be required to submit to a test.
Section 96 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 provides this power. The test can be carried out between 8am and 9pm, only in daylight.
What if I refuse to do the test?
If the officer has a reasonable suspicion that you have been driving while your eyesight is such that you could not pass the test and you refuse to do so, you are committing an offence.
What could happen?
Failing to stop for a police officer, under section 163, can be punished by a fine.
Driving with uncorrected defective eyesight or refusing to submit to a test of vision carries a fine, discretionary disqualification and an obligatory endorsement of three penalty points.
What about my licence, can it be revoked?
If you fail a vision test at the roadside, or fail to comply, the police can immediately report this fact to the DVLA.
There is a fast track system whereby a decision to revoke your licence can quickly be made, such a decision taking place within hours. Once your licence is revoked, it will be not be returned until you can demonstrate that your eyesight meets the required standard.
Your licence being revoked will not prevent a prosecution for the offences outlined above.
Why is the police vision test in the news?
The power for fast-track revocation has existed since 2013. The power is now being widely reported as three police forces have announced their intention to undertake such checks at the roadside, this may be extended nationwide.
Based on a study by the Association of Optometrists it is estimated that some 1 million people in the UK are driving illegally. RSA Insurance estimates that eyesight problems cause nearly 3000 casualties per year on the UK roads.
The police forces involved in the initiative have said that they will be gathering data as to the extent of any issues. Potentially, this could lead to a further mandatory vision test at some stage after the practical driving test.
This article refers to the position relating to the right to bail for adults. The situation in relation to youths is different.
As an adult, the starting point is that you have a “right” to be granted bail. This right can only be taken away in certain circumstances. These circumstances are where the court has substantial grounds to believe that if you were granted bail you would:
Fail to surrender;
Commit further offences on bail; or
Interfere with witnesses
In some rare instances bail can be denied for a defendant’s own protection or welfare.
What if I am already on bail?
If you are charged with an offence alleged to have been committed whilst on bail, then you do not have this automatic right to bail.
In that case you do not have to be granted bail, but you can still be if you persuade the court that you will not fail to surrender, commit further offences or interfere with witnesses.
If you appear in court following a failure to surrender at an earlier hearing you also lose the automatic right to bail.
Does it matter if I am a drug user?
If you have tested positive for class A drugs and refuse to co-operate with treatment you may not be granted bail unless the court is satisfied that there is no significant risk of an offence being committed whilst on bail.
Will I have conditions on my bail?
The court can grant bail unconditionally or they can impose bail conditions if they are satisfied that those conditions are necessary to address any risk that you would fail to surrender, commit further offences or interfere with witnesses. Any conditions imposed have to be both necessary and proportionate.
Examples of bail conditions that are often imposed are:
curfew
residence
not to contact named witnesses
not to go to a specific area
reporting to the police station
You or a person on your behalf could also agree to pay money into the court which would be forfeited if you subsequently failed to attend court.
What if the offence isn’t serious?
You should be granted bail if there is no real likelihood of a prison sentence if you plead guilty or are convicted. As always there are exceptions to the rule. You may still find yourself in custody if the court is satisfied there are substantial grounds for believing that you would:
Commit an offence while on bail by engaging in conduct that would, or would be likely to cause-
physical or mental injury to an associated person; or
an associated person to fear physical or mental injury.
Commit further offences if the offence was committed whilst on bail;
Fail to surrender, if you have previous convictions for this;
If you have been arrested for breach of bail for this offence and there is a fear of failure to surrender, further offences or interference with witnesses.
Non-imprisonable offences and bail
If you are charged with a non-imprisonable offence you can only be denied bail if you have previously failed to surrender and there is a belief you would do so again or following a breach of bail.
Are there any other reasons I could be kept in custody?
You can also be kept in custody for your own protection or if you are already a serving prisoner. Also, if there is insufficient information to decide about bail you can be kept in custody for the purposes of obtaining that information.
The magistrates do not have the power to grant bail for anyone charged with murder or treason. For an offence of manslaughter, rape or a serious sexual offence where there is a previous conviction for one of these offences you can only be granted bail if there are exceptional reasons to justify it.
Contact a criminal law specialist to discuss bail
This article is intended to be an overview of the law and does not cover all potential issues that can arise. Neither does it discuss the best way to present an application for bail, nor the information that may need to be gathered to ensure your best bail application is made to the court.
While many will agree that the Criminal Justice System is not necessarily the most appropriate place to deal with those suffering from mental health difficulties. Unfortunately, there is, sadly, a regular overlap between the two. As a result we need to have particular skills to represent vulnerable defendants.
This means that the staff across our offices have experience of dealing with those who are vulnerable defendants, and are experienced in gaining our clients’ trust to be able to assist them throughout the court process.
During his years as a criminal defence solicitor, Chesterfield crime solicitor Ben Strelley has represented many vulnerable individuals before the court. His manner means that he has the ability to engage with clients whatever their difficulties to gain their trust.
Here is a recent example of his representation in a case that required sensitive handling.
Assault allegations against a vulnerable client
Ben’s client was an inpatient at the Hartington Mental Health Unit in Chesterfield. She faced two accusations of common assault. The complainants were two of the nurses caring for her. She faced a separate charge of causing damage at Derby hospital prior to her arrival at the unit.
Our client had no recollection of any of the incidents. She did, of course, accept that in these circumstances the staff had no reason to lie. In circumstances where a client had no such vulnerabilities then the case would normally involve straightforward advice to plead guilty. The evidence was strong and there was no defence to advance.
In the circumstances of this case, however, it was important for Ben to make further enquiries as to his client’s mental health at the time of the incident. It may be that this could afford a defence, or significant mitigation, or allow him to make representations that the prosecution is not in the public interest.
Ben investigated this aspect of the case with the prosecution. He was then provided with a medical report from a relevant doctor who confirmed that she did have the necessary capacity at the time of the assault allegations. The report was silent about her health at the time of the criminal damage matter.
As a result, Ben advised his client to plead guilty to the assaults. He was able to negotiate with the prosecution to drop the criminal damage charge. Bearing in mind the other pleas that prosecution was no longer in the public interest.
Sentence following guilty pleas
Normally an assault on a member of NHS staff while at work is likely to result in, a the very least, consideration of a prison sentence. Ben was of the view that the unique circumstances of his client’s health were such that the court ought to be of significant importance upon sentence.
In the end the Magistrates agreed with Ben. Rather than a prison sentence or community order his client received a small fine and was ordered to pay some compensation.
Ben’s client was delighted at this outcome because it meant that she would be able to continue with her treatment in the community with the aim of overcoming her acute mental health difficulties.
Instruct a criminal solicitor specialising in vulnerable defendants
Case such as this demonstrates the importance of instructing a solicitor who has compassion, patience and communication skills to achieve the best outcome for vulnerable defendants.
In this case, Ben had to gain the trust of his client, speak to the prosecution about the strength of the evidence, and then persuade Magistrates to depart from the usual sentencing guideline for cases such as this.
If you or a family member or friend are in the position of being spoken to by the police as a result of an alleged incident involving medical staff then you can contact your nearest office here.
VHS Fletchers East Midlands offices
Alternatively you can use the contact form below:
Contact
Category Archives: News
Accredited police station representative Rob Lowe
Despite very late contact with his client, accredited police station representative Rob Lowe was still able to provide free police station advice to secure a restorative justice outcome rather than a police caution.
Negotiation with police under legal aid scheme
Rob was called by a client who had already been interview in relation to allegations of affray and assault occasioning actual bodily harm. Unfortunately, he had chosen not to seek our free and independent legal advice at that stage.
It appeared that he had made admissions to the assault in this police interview. He had been released under investigation but the police had contacted him some time later as they intended to give him an official police caution to end the matter.
Unfortunately, our client’s work involved him being a frequent visitor to the United States of America. Understandably he had concerns that a caution might prevent him form getting into the States in the future. As a result, he was reluctant to accept the caution. He also raised an issue that he perhaps had not made admissions and had told the police that the complainant was the aggressor.
Rob travelled to Sheffield from our Chesterfield office to go to the police station with his client. This allowed him to speak to the police officer dealing with the case to determine whether a police caution was an appropriate way to deal with the case. Was the evidence there to support the offence? Had his client actually admitted the offence? If there was an admission was a restorative justice option available instead of a police caution?
Having spoken to the officer, Rob concluded that the police officer was acting appropriately by offering a caution. There was evidence from the complainant and photographs of injuries. His client had made an admission to an assault, albeit on a limited basis.
Restorative justice outcome negotiated
Instead of simply accepting the caution, Rob was then able to make successful representations that he case be dealt with by way of a restorative justice disposal. This was agreed by both the client and the complainant in the case. The outcome simply involved our client keeping away from the complainant.
This outcome meant that our client did not receive a criminal record and does not need to worry about future business trips to America.
Speak to a specialist police station adviser for free
As we have a contract with the government to permit us to provide expert legal advice and representation under the legal aid scheme. This means that our advice in the police station will always be free of charge to you in the police station.
