Category Archives: News

Derby criminal solicitor advocate William Bennett secured a not guilty verdict for his client before Derby Crown Court.  He successfully challenged expert evidence so a jury was unable to convict.

William’s client faced an allegation of possessing a Class A drug with intent to supply.  The drug was cocaine so had he been convicted after trial he faced a likely sentence of four and a half years in prison.

Expert evidence scrutinised

The prosecution case was based almost entirely on the opinions of a police officer because the evidence needed interpreting for the jury.  He had undertaken an ‘expert witness’ course to become an witness who could give expert evidence in drugs cases before the Crown Court.  Cross-examination, however, established that he was far from expert.

In summary, his evidence was that the only explanation for our client to be in possession of approximately 6 grams of cocaine was that he intended to supply it.  He relied on the purity of the drug found as well as a suggestion that cutting agents were found at our client’s place of work.

The purported “expert” was cross-examined robustly by William Bennett, however.   During this detailed questioning the witness conceded that he had personally dealt with seizures of cocaine in powder form on only ten previous occasions.  He further accepted that a “regular user” of cocaine may use up to 2g of cocaine in a weekend.

These concessions undermined the contention that the witness was any form of expert in the supply of cocaine, and supported the reasonable possibility that the drug was for personal use rather than supply.

Not guilty verdict

As a result the jury took only half an hour to find William’s client not guilty of the charge.  Because of this he fell to be sentenced for just possession of the drug.

The case shows the importance of choosing an experienced advocate.  They can scrutinise and challenge effectively the opinions of purported experts so that your best case can be put.  Such a challenge is often particularly important where expert evidence is relied on in drugs cases.

Contact a Criminal Defence Advocate

Legal aid is available for the majority of criminal cases heard before the Crown Court so we will always investigate with you the most affordable way of funding your case.

William Bennett can be contacted on 01332 546818 but alternatively you can email him using the form below.

Category Archives: News

Derby crime solicitor John Young recently acted for a client who faced what appeared to be an inevitable prison sentence.  His client had an appalling history for breaching his restraining order.  A first order had been made in 2010 but this had been breached five times.

Although that order was revoked in 2012, a  second Restraining Order was imposed in 2014.  That order had already been breached 10 times with the most recent sentence for breach being three weeks prior to this sentencing.

New breaches of a restraining order

John’s client was originally charged with two allegations of breaching the restraining order.  On the second occasion he had been arrested at his ex-partner’s address so was clearly guilty of the offence.  However John was able to negotiate with the prosecution that it wasn’t in the public interest to proceed with both charges.  As a result, his client only pleaded guilty to the single offence.

All of the circumstances would suggest that a prison sentence was inevitable in this case:

• offence committed during a period of supervision

• offence placed him in breach of a community order

• he had an extremely poor record for identical offending

The sentencing guidelines suggested that not only should the case be dealt with by a prison sentence, but that the client should have been committed to Derby Crown Court for sentence.  A sentence of six months in prison was represented by the prosecution as being insufficient because of these guidelines.

Suspended sentence rather than immediate custody

Instead, John used all of his experience and persuasive advocacy to ensure that his client received a further chance to turn his offending around while in the community.   It is hoped he can avoid further breaches of his restraining order.

Continuity of Representation

John’s client was assisted by the fact that we are able to provide continuity of representation in most cases.  He had dealt with his client for the previous court appearance so knew all of his background and the history of previous orders.  As a result, all of this worked to his client’s advantage.

John’s client was both surprised and pleased to receive a suspended sentence rather than an immediate prison sentence of some length.

Contact a Derby Criminal Defence Solicitor

We offer 24 hour emergency advice and representation for those being investigated for criminal offences or detained for court at weekends.  Police station advice and representation will always be free of charge to you, as will any interview with the police under caution, whether you are arrested or a volunteer, at the police station or at your home address.

The locations and contact details for your nearest office can be found here.

John Young can be contacted on 01332 546818 or if you want to email him then please use the form below.

Category Archives: News

The Hammond Cup Advocacy Competition Final

On 13 April trainee solicitor Elliott Moulster took part in the final of the Hammond Cup.  The event is in its 49th year.  It is an advocacy competition organised by the Junior Lawyers Division of the Nottinghamshire Law Society.  It is open to students, paralegals, trainee solicitors and pupil barristers.

The Facts

The final of the competition involved a mock trial.  The facts were as follows.  Mr James Connway had been accused of assaulting Mr Henry Hill by striking him in the face as he cycled down the A609.  It was alleged that Connway had been driving in a reckless and intimidating manner.  The intimidation had led to the complainant fearing that he would be run off the road.

After this intimidatory driving, the Connway was said to have stopped his car in a lay-by. He then got out of his car and waited to confront the complainant. Anticipating trouble, the complainant said he attempted to avoid any confrontation by simply cycling past. He alleged that as he did so, Connway raised his hand and hit the him in the face fracturing his nose.

After the assault, the complaint took pictures of the defendant’s car for the purpose of identification. The complainant was also assisted by a member of the public, Mr Morrie Kessler, who had witnessed the entire assault. The defendant was said to have simply driven away.  He was subsequently invited to attend a voluntary police station interview.

The Prosecution

Elliott acted on behalf of the prosecution and would be presenting the evidence as set out above.  Unfortunately there were numerous problems with the prosecution case. These included inconsistencies between the prosecution witnesses, many opportunities to challenge their recollection combined with serious problems regarding identification.

The trial itself was conducted in one of the mock court rooms at Nottingham Trent University. As there were four finalists two trials were held.  One finalist acted for the prosecution and one for the defence in each trial. The advocates were judged by members of the legal profession acting as magistrates. The witnesses were played by members of the junior lawyer’s division.

Elliott’s opening speech was perhaps the highlight of his problematic case.  He faced an uphill battle to put his case across through his examination in chief of his difficult witnesses.  The structure of the trial was a test of the advocate’s ability to manage their witnesses and elicit important information.

The Verdict

At the conclusion of the competition, Elliott secured a creditable third place against some very tough competition. Although he was very proud of this achievement, he has vowed to return next year to improve on this position during what will undoubtedly be a special 50^th Anniversary Hammond Cup.

Category Archives: News

As a Nottingham Law School Alumni, our trainee solicitor Elliott Moulster has recently been asked to join the NLS Alumni Fellowship. The aim of the fellowship is to help put students at Nottingham Law School in contact with members of the legal profession. It is hoped that in doing so, legal professionals are able to share their knowledge, skills and experience with the next generation of lawyers.

VHS Fletchers currently supports students with placements and work experience.  Elliott was very keen to join the Alumni scheme and maintain a positive relationship with the university. Whilst Elliott was at university, he personally benefited from a professional mentor and can therefore appreciate how beneficial they are to students.

Valuable Experience

The Fellowship provides many different ways for professionals to get involved and actively encourages its members to come up with novel initiatives. Some of the activities that the program runs include:

• mentoring

• networking events

• employability workshops

• blog writing

• opportunities for pro-bono work

So far, Elliott has supported and attended numerous events run by the university. He has also started mentoring students interested in a future in criminal law. Although as a trainee he may still have a lot to learn and experience himself, Elliott knows he can assist. He will be particularly helpful in explaining how to make the jump from university to professional practice as he has only recently done so himself.

Developing our involvement

Elliott is also currently looking for ways to expand his involvement in the scheme.  These include ideas such as drop in mentoring sessions currently being discussed.

Overall, Elliott feels that it is an extremely worthwhile and rewarding opportunity. One of which he is also very thankful to have the firm’s support in pursuing. The university is always looking for more fellows and Elliott would encourage as many people as possible to get involved.

Contact Elliott Moulster about the Alumni Fellowship

If you have any queries about the scheme or how Elliott could help you then please telephone him on 0115 9441233.  You can email him here.

Category Archives: News

As well as representing those being investigated or charged with crimes, Mansfield crime solicitor Tim Haines also prosecutes on behalf of the Environment Agency.  He recently prosecuted several anglers for fishing without a licence.

Although some may view such offending as unimportant, the funds raised from the sale of fishing licences are used to improve fish stocks and promote angling.  The money raised will be spent on dealing with the effects of pollution and disease, as well as eradicating invasive species and improving fish habitats.

Without the necessary licence, an angler can soon find that he has had an expensive day out.

Fines for fishing without a licence

The five Nottinghamshire anglers that were prosecuted were guilty of fishing without a licence.  Between them they had to pay penalties totalling £4,265.

They were caught fishing without a licence during  a routine patrol carried out by Environment Agency bailiffs.  These patrols are carried out to ensure that the future of angling is protected for the vast majority of anglers who fish legally. An annual rod licence is currently only  £30.

Applying for a licence

The Environment Agency has recently simplified the process of applying for a rod licence.  The application can be made online.  Changes have been made to simplify the process including:

• Free licences for junior anglers, up to the age of 17

• The fishing licence will now last for 12 months from the day it is bought.  Previously they expired at the end of March every year

• Anglers now need only one licence to use three rods, rather than the two licences that were needed previously.

Contact us with any enquiries

If you have any queries about such prosecutions then please contact us using the form below.

Category Archives: News

Chesterfield Crime Solicitor David Gittins recently represented a young man before Chesterfield Magistrates Court. His client had been charged with the serious offence of section 20 Grievous Bodily Harm or GBH.  It was alleged he had broken the jaw of the complainant.

The sentencing guidelines mean that such an offence will regularly carry a custodial sentence upon conviction.  Furthermore, such cases will often be dealt with before the Crown Court.

In this case, David gave careful consideration to the guidelines and the facts.  As a result he was able to convince the court not only to keep the case but also to impose an alternative to immediate custody.

Free police station advice and representation

Experienced Police Station Representative Rob Lowe first attended Chesterfield Police station with our client.  This was some months before the matter finally came before the court.

Rob was able to provide free legal advice following arrest for grievous bodily harm. This was under the legal aid scheme.  Such advice is not means tested so as a result will always be free of charge.

Having a legal representative in the police station is always important.  Rob was able to secure information from the police about the incident.  As a result the client knew in advance what the allegation was.  Rob took our client’s instructions. He was then able to advise on the strength of the evidence.

The evidence was very strong  as our client was named as the aggressor. Our client accepted that he was guilty of the offence.  He then had a decision to make as to whether he would answer police questions or not.

Rob was able to explain that there is often something to be gained by answering police questions even where a person will accept guilt at court.  In this case it was important that our client explain at the outset why he had acted as he did.  It was an early opportunity for him to say how sorry he felt.  This would help him gain maximum credit on sentence when the case reached court.

Late service of CCTV evidence (again)

When the matter was eventually charged David took over the management of the case to prepared the case for court.  Although the entire incident was covered by CCTV this was not available until the day the case was first in court.

The footage was clear and showed our client punching the victim once to the face.  He was knocked to the ground. Sadly the victim was left with a fractured jaw that needed surgery.  The Prosecution was to argue that the case should be allocated to the Crown Court as the Magistrates’ sentencing powers were insufficient.

Representations on mode of trial and allocation

David was able to argue against that, relying on a number of factors:

• The CCTV footage showed his client breaking up a fight immediately before he threw the punch

• he walked off straight away

• there was a single punch so no follow up

• he was of good character

• he was only 18 at the time of the incident

• his early admission of guilty

The Magistrates were taken through the relevant sentencing guidelines in detail.  As a result, despite prosecution representations, the Magistrates agreed the case could remain in their court.  The case was adjourned in order that a pre-sentence could be obtained from the probation service.

Suspended sentence for Grievous Bodily Harm

When the matter returned to Court a week later the Probation service had prepared a report.  Although prison remained an option, the report concluded that our client’s risk could be managed outside the prison system. As a result, any punishment could properly be within the community.

David’s powerful and reasoned mitigation led to his client receiving a twelve week sentence of imprisonment.  This sentence would be suspended.  This was combined with community elements and compensation.

As a result our client was understandably delighted.  He realised just how close he had come to receiving an immediate prison sentence.

Contact a Chesterfield Criminal Defence Specialist

Without condoning violence, the outcome shows that with the right preparation a court can be persuaded to sentence on the basis of single mistake that will never be repeated.  There is often flexibility within the guidelines to permit a sentence that properly reflects the mitigation available to a client.

However, you will only be able to secure the best result for you in the circumstances if you choose your legal representatives carefully.

If you face a police investigation or court proceedings for an offence such as Grievous Bodily Harm then you can contact David or Rob at our Chesterfield office on 01246 283000.  Alternatively you can use the form below to email your enquiry to us.

Category Archives: News

Chesterfield Crime Solicitor David Gittins recently represented a client in difficulties at Chesterfield Magistrates’ Court.  The client had committed an offence in breach of a suspended sentence.

The court would have to be given a good reason not to activate the sentence.

The Allegation

David’s client had been arrested in relation to two allegations of common assault owing to having been drinking all day.  He had drunk about 20 pints of lager so had not considered the consequences.

His partner who had been with him left the public house.  Unfortunately she had taken an item of sentimental value belonging to the pub landlord.  As a result the landlord understandably followed her and retrieved the item.  Meanwhile, David’s client remained at the pub.

When his partner returned she was suddenly tripped up and landed heavily on the floor.  Without thinking, our client punched the male to the face and a small scuffle began. The scuffle ended after a few moments and the David’s client began talking to others at the scene.

During this time, he lashed out again, punching another male to the face before walking away from the pub.

Offence in breach of a suspended sentence

When charged and before the court David’s client accepted that he was guilty of the charges.  He entered guilty pleas.  Unfortunately, these offences were committed in breach of a suspended sentence imposed three weeks previously.

As a result, the court would immediately consider that the suspended sentence ought to be activated.  A separate sentence would be imposed for the new offences. The likelihood was that this would happen at the first appearance and without reports being prepared.

Mitigation sought to try and avoid the inevitable

David secured information to put before the Court in a bid to convince it not to send his client to prison.  David took detailed personal mitigation from his client. The client was very proud to say that he had undertaken a period of alcohol abstinence and had been dry, albeit for a short period.

His main concern was not for himself but rather his daughter.  He cared for her four nights per week so that his ex-partner was able to work on the evenings he had his daughter.  If his client was sent to prison it was unclear who would provide the necessary case.  His ex-partner may have had to leave her employment because there were no other family members close by to assist.

Additionally any period of imprisonment would have resulted in our client’s  online business closing so staff would be made redundant. His current partner would be as a result unable to maintain payments on their family home.  Customers would lose out as well.

David spoke with the probation service at court.  Therefore he gained information confirming that his client was progressing well on his suspended sentence order.  He had begun to resolve long term issues in his life.

Unjust to activate the suspended sentence

Owing to his detailed preparation, David was able to address the Magistrates at length about the reasons behind the recent offending.  He could provide significant personal mitigation.  David outlined the good progress that his Client was making under his current order.  Much emphasis could also be placed on the impact to others if our client was sent to prison.  This last factor was perhaps the most important in persuading the court it was unjust to activate the prison sentence.

After listening to this extensive mitigation the Magistrates agreed that the suspended sentence should not be activated. Instead they imposed a community order with a stand alone curfew for 12 weeks.

Following the breach of a suspended sentence the court extended the operational period by 6 months.

Our client was relieved not to face a prison sentence and because of that he was delighted with the outcome.

 Contact a Chesterfield Criminal Defence Lawyer

If you find yourself under investigation by the police or face court proceedings and wish to instruct David then please him telephone at our Chesterfield office on 01246 283000.

Alternatively you can contact him using the form below.

Category Archives: News

Nottingham crime solicitor Alex Chapman represented a client at Nottingham Magistrates’ Court. The allegations arose out of an alleged road rage incident.

The case proceeded to trial and after witnesses had been called Alex addressed the Magistrates on the evidence.  Our client was found not guilty.

The Allegation

It was said to be a road rage incident.  The complainant and Alex’s client were said to have pulled over in their vehicles.  They then got out of their cars and confronted one another.

The complainant told the Court that our client punched him twice without provocation. Alex’s client denied punching the complainant in his police interview.  Instead he said that he did have to push him backwards to defend himself.  This was only after the complainant had tried to punch him first.

Command of the evidence allowed focused questions

Alex’s command of the evidence allowed him to cross-examined the complainant in detail.  In particular he asked him about several comments he had made to the police in his statement.  He had not repeated them in court.

For example, he had stated that when he got out of his car his ‘blood was up’.  He accepted that he had been swearing at our client.  The complainant also said that he practised mixed-martial-arts.  A belief had been expressed that he could have ‘wiped the floor’ with our client if he had wanted.

These comments were capable of raising a doubt as to who was the aggressor.  The Magistrates might be suspicious of the complainant’s motives for withholding this information.

The complainant’s wife gave evidence as well.  Under careful cross examination Alex brought out a number of discrepancies.  The effect of this was to cast substantial doubt over the Prosecution case.

Our clients was a victim of road rage

Alex’s client gave evidence. He explained that his wife, mother-in-law and two young children were present at the scene. The Court was told Court that the Complainant had been acting extremely aggressively.  The complainant swung a punch at him first so he had little choice but to push him away.

Our client’s wife also attended to give evidence,  Although extremely nervous, she gave an account entirely consistent with that of her husband.

Burden and standard of proof

In order to convict our client the Magistrates’ had to be sure of his guilt.  He did not have to prove anything.  Alex addressed the Magistrates in his closing speech.  Discrepancies in the Prosecution case were highlighted to the Court.  Alex reminded the bench of the level of aggression expressed by the complainant in his original police statement.

It appeared that the complainant had been unable to contain his own bravado when he had spoken to the police officer.  This revealed the truth of the incident.

In the circumstances Alex’s client had little reason to have punched the complainant without provocation as described.

On considering all of the evidence the Magistrates decided that Alex’s client was not guilty.

Free legal aid funding

Alex’s client was financially eligible for legal aid to ensure his free representation before the Magistrates’ Court.

Contact a Nottingham criminal defence lawyer

If you are under investigation by the police or face court proceedings then you will want to seek expert advice and representation in your case.

The trial here was at Nottingham Magistrates’ Court.  Alex’s client lived in the Chesterfield area. Alex was able to see him at our Chesterfield office to prepare his case.  This prevented a lengthy, expensive and inconvenient journey for him and his family.  We will always seek to prepare your case in the most convenient manner for you.

If you wish to speak to one of our lawyers then please contact your nearest office.  Details are here.

Alternatively you can use the following contact form:

Category Archives: News

The issue of pre-charge bail periods has been highlighted in the national press in recent years following the arrest of high profile individuals as part of major criminal investigations such as Operation Yewtree.

Campaign to limit pre-charge bail successful?

The spotlight has been on those individuals placed on Police bail for month after month following arrest whilst investigations were completed into the alleged crimes. The impact of these long delays, which are rarely explained, on the suspect, victims and the administration of Justice cannot be underestimated.  A summary of the campaign to change the procedure can be found here.

As such the Government has attempted to address this in the new Policing and Crime Act 2017. However, while the revised 28 day bail period may be headline grabbing, a closer look shows a complex set of rules which reveal that this limitation is not what it seems.

Police bail in the past

The previous rules for individuals arrested by the police and placed on police bail whilst investigations continue in England and Wales are rather simple and open to abuse or lack of proper consideration. A custody sergeant would base a decision on what they were told by an investigating officer.  He could be easily persuaded that it was necessary and proportionate to impose bail so that the Police could continue to investigate an offence.  Bail could be granted to obtain a decision from the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) to charge.  The bail could be subsequently extended if more time is was requested and justified.

There were no time limits imposed on this, other than where minor offences needing to be charged within 6 months of the commission of the offence.

Bail without limit of time

As a result suspects who have not been convicted of any crime could remain on bail for months at a time, often with bail conditions that limited their private lives.  They would  not know if they were to face criminal prosecution or not.  Thus people’s lives would be put on hold, simply waiting for a return on bail to the police station to find out their fate.  Often, they were simply re-bailed as the investigation was said not to be complete.  The waiting would begin again.

In some cases there may well be justification for such delays. For example, there may a large number of witnesses to find and speak to during a public disturbance, or expert forensic evidence is needed to be sought and tested, or hours of CCTV footage to be considered.

Often, however, any extension was due to officers not completing necessary enquiries due to the level of their workloads, lack of resources, unhelpful shift patterns, holidays and the transfer of cases between officers.  The impact on a suspect or alleged victim could be immeasurable and so needed addressing.

New pre-charge bail rules from 3 April 2017

Due to this need the Policing and Crime Act 2017 has been passed. This brings in new rules on all new arrests from 3^rd April 2017.

The main principal of the new law is that there is a presumption is introduced.  This applies in cases where Police are not in a position to seek a charging decision immediately following a first detention.  In these cases the suspect will be released without bail and contacted in the future if further enquiries deem it necessary.

The legislation acknowledges that a large proportion of cases currently investigated result in a suspect being placed on Police bail whilst further enquiries are made.  Therefore the presumption seems unlikely to apply in many cases and instead the police will continue to place suspects on bail.

28 Day Limit on pre-charge bail

Under the new law the police, where they feel it necessary and proportionate, can impose bail on the suspect to return to the police station in 28 days.  This is substantially shorter than previous pre-charge bail time scales adopted by the police.  It is designed with the hope that the police will continue to investigate the offence.  There will not be the prejudice of substantial delays on the suspect or alleged victim.

Within that 28 day period the police are expected to conclude their enquiries.  They should also obtain a decision as to whether the suspect should be charged. This should be a straightforward obligation on the police that should improve matters for all.

Rules undermining 28 day pre-charge bail limit

The 28 day limit is unfortunately qualified in several ways.  For example, the period is suspended if the case is transferred to the Crown Prosecution Service for a charging decision.  It only restarts when the case is returned from them to the Police.

As a result, if the CPS inform the officer that they will need 3 months to consider the file the suspect will simply have his bail enlarged for that period.  It will not count.  Whilst the Police would still have to consider if it is necessary and proportionate to have the suspect on bail for that period, past experience tells us that they will.  Delays will continue.

Additionally, at the end of any 28 day period the prosecution can advise the officer that further work is required.   The investigating officer can ask a Superintendent to extend the bail period by up to three months.

Time with the CPS doesn’t count

This three months is from the first arrest.  However, it doesn’t include any time that the file has been with the prosecution.  As a result it is likely to be longer.  If at the end of this extended period the investigation is still not concluded the police can apply to a Magistrates’ Court for yet more time.  This process can be repeated. It is unlikely that these applications will be conducted in a transparent manner, and disappointment with bail extension decisions are likely to persist.

Separate rules for designated cases

Applications to extend the length of pre-charge bail times will not be reserved for the most complex and serious cases.  Such cases are deemed Designated Cases for the purposes of the legislation.  These cases are allowed to wait even longer before any extensions to the bail period are sought.

Judicial oversight in bail cases is welcome.  It will ultimately lead to frustration where the threshold for permitting an extension is low.   There is further speculation that police will sidestep the legislation limiting pre-charge bail by treating the suspect as a volunteer.  They are never arrested and not placed on bail, so the limits do not apply.

As a result, the headline grabbing 28 day bail limit will not do what it appears to say on the tin.  Whether it will speed up justice and remove concerns about pre-charge bail times remains to be seen.

Contact a criminal defence lawyer to discuss pre-charge bail concerns

We have always recognised the impact that lengthy periods on police bail can have on our clients.  We would always take the opportunity to make representations as to whether bail should be extended.

Our criminal defence solicitors and accredited representatives have received training in relation to the new provisions.  They know what we need to do to ensure that your interests are protected during the investigation stage.

You can speak to a specialist criminal lawyer at one of our six offices across the East Midlands.  Find your nearest office here.

Alternatively you can contact us using the form below and we will be in touch.

Category Archives: News

Nottingham and Newark crime solicitor Lauren Manuel recently represented a client appearing before Nottingham Magistrates’ Court for drink driving.  Her mitigation meant that he avoid an immediate prison sentence even though his reading was over four times the legal limit.

Lauren represented her client under an affordable fixed fee agreement.

Drink driving – over four times the legal limit

The client was driving his motor vehicle in Nottingham during rush hour.    A witness saw the client drive wide around a bend crossing the central line.  He tried to correct the vehicle.  The car then headed towards a kerb and he lost control of the car.  It hit a telegraph pole with enough force so that it caused the pole to be sheared off.  It fell into the path of oncoming traffic.

Lauren’s client then attempted to get out of the vehicle and leave the scene.  Instead he was detained by members of the public.  He cooperated with the police when they asked for a specimen of breath.  Unfortunately it was over four times the limit.  The offence was further aggravated as he had neither insurance cover or a valid driving licence.

Mitigation avoids immediate prison sentence

Such a high reading in combination with the aggravating circumstances would normally result in an unavoidable and immediate prison sentence.   Instead, Lauren was able to use her experience and persuasive advocacy to ensure that the Magistrates felt able to impose a suspended sentence instead.

Lauren identified that she would be able to put compelling personal mitigation before the court so that prison could be avoided.  She was able to demonstrate to the Magistrates that her client needed assistance.  Of late he had found himself in extremely difficult circumstances.  Prior to those arising, and this incident, he had been a man of good character.  He had no previous convictions or cautions.

As a result, the court was able to balance her client’s personal mitigation and credit for his guilty pleas against the very serious aggravating features of the offence.

Although he was to be punished, that punishment was a suspended sentence.  He was to undergo rehabilitation and address his alcohol misuse.  He was, of course, disqualified from driving for a lengthy period.

Affordable Fixed Fee Representation

Although Lauren’s client was not financially eligible to receive free legal aid, she was able to offer him representation by way of an affordable fixed fee.

Contact a motoring law solicitor

Whether you are admitting an offence or intend to contest an allegation such as drink driving you will benefit from seeking expert advice and representation.  If you wish to speak to Lauren then please contact her on 0115 9599550.  Alternatively you can use the following contact form: