Category Archives: News

Nottingham criminal solicitor Lauren Fisher secured a not guilty verdict for her client in an unusual case alleging the aiding and abetting of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and a second charge of common assault.

Re-opening Mode of Trial?

On the day of trial the case was listed before a District Judge. Although Magistrates had previously accepted that this could be a case dealt with in the Magistrates’ Court, the Judge took the view that that the case ought to be before the Crown Court.  This was on the basis that the starting point ought to be one of two years after trial based on the sentencing guidelines.  The assault was said to be prolonged, had involved a weapon, and was in a domestic setting so involved a breach of trust.

Lauren argued successfully that it was inappropriate to re-open this decision on the day of trial and the trial proceeded.

Crown Failure Over ABE Interview

The Crown intended to rely on Achieving Best Evidence (ABE) pre-recorded interviews as evidence in chief for the witness. Unfortunately for the witness the prosecution had not applied to the court for this to be allowed, and then failed to ask for permission out of time.

As a result, the witness had to give all of their evidence ‘live’ rather than just be cross-examined.  This benefited Lauren’s client as the witness departed from this original interview account and was able to be cross-examined on these differences in account.

Lauren has also investigated material held by the police and prosecution that did not form part of the case.  This unused material included phone records of calls between Lauren’s client and a co-defendant.  The allegation was that Lauren’s client had telephoned the co-accused to bring them to the address to carry out the assault.

The phone records showed that there was no such call.  Lauren ensured that this fact was admitted by the prosecution and would be before the District Judge as evidence.

Too Many Inconsistencies to Ignore

The cross-examination on the inconsistencies in combination with the lie about the phone call meant that the Judge found Lauren’s defendant not guilty.  In reaching this decision he specifically announced that there were too many large inconsistencies to ignore.

This decision was a relief to Lauren’s client as the co-accused, following conviction, was committed to the Crown Court for sentence with an indication that custody was inevitable.

Contact Lauren Fisher

Should you wish to contact Lauren Fisher in relation to a case at either the police station or Magistrates’ Court involving Actual Bodily Harm or any other charge then please telephone her on 0115 9599550 or use the contact form below.

Category Archives: News

Nottingham crime solicitor Lauren Fisher recently represented a client before Nottingham Magistrates’ Court charged with an assault on his partner.  The allegation was serious in that it was said that there had been a prolonged attack over the course of several hours.

Defence Statement and Unused Material

Lauren’s client accepted that he may have caused her injury but this was during the course of preventing his partner from harming herself.  This was perhaps an unusual defence in an assault trial.

There was an accepted history of self-harm.  On this occasion it would be argued that she was attempting to hurt herself and had to be prevented from jumping out of an upstairs window and running into a road.

Consideration of the instructions given and a review of the disclosure meant that Lauren knew that the police or prosecution was likely to hold unused material that would assist her client’s case.  As a result she drafted a document called a defence statement.  This ensured that she was provided with the additional information needed to establish a prior history of self-harm by the complainant.

Cross Examination Lead to Not Guilty Verdict

It was recognised by Lauren that the case would require careful and sensitive cross examination of her client’s partner.  It was important that the approach taken not antagonise the Magistrates whilst effectively and robustly challenging the account given.  It was likely that the witness would be upset.

During the course of the trial Lauren had to make decisions as to how best to present her client’s case.  A decision was made to agree that a statement of an absent prosecution witness could simply be read.  Although some points potentially harmed her client’s case, other points were of great assistance.

Although witness denied that she was attempting to hurt herself on this occasion, the unused material disclosed raised our client’s alternative explanation as a reasonable possibility.

Ultimately, the approach adopted by Lauren proved to be the correct one.  After careful consideration the Magistrates found her client not guilty of the offence.

Contact Lauren Fisher

If you face court proceedings such as an assault trial and wish to instruct a solicitor that can combine careful preparation, a tactical approach and an ability to tailor cross-examination to the needs of your case then please contact Lauren Fisher on 0115 9599550 or email her here.

Category Archives: News

Nottingham crime solicitor and prison law representative Louise Wright recently attended HMP Stoke Heath to represent one client several at an adjudication hearing, but ended up representing nearly everybody facing an adjudication that day.

Adjudications can have a serious impact upon each prisoner if proved.  There is a risk that additional days will be added onto existing sentences, delaying release.

New Clients at HMP Stoke Heath

Although it is desirable to have advance notice of such hearing to allow preparation in advance, on this day Louise found herself dealing with back to back charges, all being challenged by the prisoners involved.  The allegations spanned a range of alleged offences including:

• assault
• barricading of cells
• failing Mandatory Drugs Testing (MDT)

One prisoner faced 7 separate charges.  Another one was said to have disobeyed a lawful order by refusing to attend for an MDT.  The latter offence is particularly serious if proved as there is a starting point of 34 additional days to any existing sentence.

Random Drug Tests Must be Random

This prisoner had been subject to a MDT less than 4 weeks prior to the charge date.  There was a concern that the prisoner was being subjected to ‘specific targeting’ in breach of the Prison Service Instructions (PSI).  In order to explore this aspect of the case Louise requested a copy of the data relating to the random selection process,  and requested the attendance of the MDT co-ordinator to deal with these key issues in evidence.

Louise had previously prepared a similar case, and was able to rely on her knowledge and argument here to successfully argue on the client’s behalf that the Prison Service was unable to prove that the MDT request was lawful.  ‘Randomness’ is an essential prerequisite prior to submission to a random MDT. The charge was dismissed.

Procedural Irregularities Lead to Dismissal

A different prisoner had attended the MDT Suite but had been unable to provide a sample for testing.  After 3 hours in the suite, he requested to be returned to his cell.  As a result he was placed on report which could have resulted in a potential sentence of 42 additional days.

Louise took full instructions on the entire process from his collection from his cell to the point in which he was placed on report.  As a result, she identified that there had been a breach of standing orders as her client had not been offered food and drink at specific and relevant times throughout the procedure.  The Reporting Officer was questioned on this point and as a result a  successful submission of no case to answer was made,  based on this breach of procedure.  The case was dismissed.

Louise had further successes throughout the day when numerous charges were dismissed for either breaches of procedure or because of gaps in the evidence given by officers.

Prison Officer Don’t Know Procedures

Her day highlighted the fact that many prison officers simply do not know procedure and the effect that this can have on whether a case can be proved.  Unfortunately, without experienced legal representation it may be difficult for prisoners to identify relevant issues and put forward successful defences.

It will be clear to all clients that meet Louise that she is a fervent and passionate supporter of prisoner’s right’s.  Each case she deals with is  prepared meticulously.   The starting point is always whether the prison service has behaved lawfully and within the rules.

Contact Louise Wright

If you or a family member need Louise’s help at HMP Stoke Heath or any other prison or Young Offenders Institution then please telephone her on 0115 9599550, write to her at 111 Carrington Street, Nottingham, NG1 7FE or email her here.

Category Archives: News

Chesterfield Criminal solicitor David Gittins recently successfully defended his client at trial before Chesterfield Magistrates Court.  He had been charged with an offence of burglary with intent to steal.

Blood from David’s client had been found at the point of entry into the property and he had no account to give as he did not remember anything about the incident.

Despite this, David’s meticulous examination of the evidence and knowledge of the law meant that he was able to out forward an argument that allowed the Magistrates’ to find him ‘not guilty’ in less than ten minutes.

The Allegation

The allegation involved staff at a garage leaving premises secured overnight but returning to discover that they had been broken into.  There was damage to a door, window and the roof.  The police discovered that whoever had gained entry had cut their hands as there were bloody hand prints left at the point of entry.  This blood was traced to David’s client through the DNA database.

In interview, following arrest, our client accepted the blood must be his but due to the amount of alcohol he had drunk that night could not recall the incident or why he was there.

The Crown Prosecution Service decided to charge the him on the strength of this evidence.   David immediately identified that whilst there was clear evidence that the Defendant had damaged the doors and entered the property, there was no evidence that suggested an intention to steal.

In fact, several aspects of the evidence would suggest otherwise:

• No untidy search you would expect to find at a burglary
• Nothing within the property had been moved
• No cash register or storage units within the property had tried to be opened
• No evidence that the Defendant had been disturbed and left

Prosecution Refuse Reasonable Suggestion

As a result David correctly advised his client that it was unlikely that the prosecution could prove the offence of burglary with intent.  Evidence was there, however, to prove an allegation of criminal damage.  A plea to this offence was offered but rejected by the prosecution at the first hearing.

Not Guilty in Ten Minutes

No witnesses were required to give evidence at trial.  David’s client decided that he would not give evidence either.  David’s submissions highlighted the weaknesses in the prosecution case in relation to proving intent.  The Magistrates took no time at all to decide that the prosecution had not proved its case.

Further, due to the Crown’s insistence that there be a trial, David’s client escaped prosecution for the criminal damage offence that he would have freely admitted.

It is extremely important that clients instruct solicitors who are prepared to analyse properly evidence and instructions.  David had previously represented the same client with similar results.  At VHS Fletchers we appreciate the need to provide continuity of representation not only in relation to current cases but also in the future.

Funding

Our client had the benefit of legal aid.  This means that our advice and representation of him was free of charge to him.

Contact David Gittins

Should you wish to contact Chesterfield crime solicitor David Gittins, please telephone him at our Chesterfield office 01246 283000 or email him here.

Category Archives: News

Nottingham based in-house counsel Steve Gosnell and senior Crown Court litigator Sarah Lees-Collier worked together to ensure a constructive sentence was imposed on a vulnerable client at Nottingham Crown Court.

Serious Offences

Their client was initially to be sentenced for two allegations of sexual activity with a child. He was 19 at the time of the allegations, but the victim was only 13.

Our client had learning difficulties and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), and in the past had problems with alcohol and drug use.  This combination of factors had led to previous incidents of self-harm.

Steve’s client maintained that they were in a consensual relationship. He accepted advice that this believe did not provide him with a defence and guilty pleas were entered at an early stage of proceedings.

In the meantime our client was charged with an allegation of Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm (ABH).  This was a serious joint attack on an immigrant.  The incident was captured on CCTV.  This showed our client kicking the victim and putting him headlock whilst on ground as part of a sustained group attack.

Again, following advice, he pleaded guilty in the Magistrates’ Court and his case was committed for sentence.  The two others involved were younger than our client.  They were also sentenced but received periods of detention.

Expert Psychologist Report

Sarah correctly identified that the court would benefit from a report dealing with his personal difficulties.  A report was obtained from a psychologist with expertise in dealing with young children and immature adults.

This report was shared with the Probation officer writing the pre-sentence report.  This led to a recommendation of  a suspended sentence including community activities.  Our client had helped himself by voluntarily attending and alcohol treatment program.

Constructive Sentence

Steve made detailed representations about categorisation of both the sexual offences and assault matter.  It was argued that the aggravating features could be properly balanced against our client’s immaturity and the level of his intellectual function.

As a result, the Judge felt able to step away from an immediate custodial sentence and instead suspend sentence with onerous but constructive community elements.  The sentence would operate to protect the public in future by reducing the risk of any repetition of offending.

Contact Steve Gosnell or Sarah Lees-Collier

If you have a case that you wish to discuss with Steve or Sarah then please telephone them on 0115 9599550.  Alternatively you can email Steve here or email Sarah here.

Category Archives: News

Chesterfield crime solicitor David Gittins recently represented a member of the Armed Forces before Chesterfield Magistrates Court caught speeding.

Speeding at 80 mph in a 30 mph Zone

Our client had been charged with speeding having been followed by a police car driving at 80 mph in a 30 mph zone. Whilst being caught speeding and the associated risk of a driving disqualification would worry most people, the impact on this individual, who needed his license to maintain his career, was perhaps greater than most.

David’s client, who was only 19 years old at the time, was driving along the Dronfield bypass towards Sheffield.  He was travelling through road works where the speed was reduced to just 30 mph. With the exception of one car following the defendant, the roads were very quiet and there were no workers in sight. It was only when the police car lights went on that the Defendant realised he had made a terrible mistake.

Our client  was compliant with the police, apologised, and was summonsed to Court. In the interim he had to tell his employers, the British Army, about his error. Whilst the Army were supportive of the Defendant and sent a superior officer to Court to support him, it was clear that if the Defendant lost his license for a substantial period he would also lose his job.

This was because David’s client was a tank divers in the British Army and needed his license to continue doing so. He was due to start operational training early in 2017 before being placed on stand by to be stationed at any war zone around the world the thereafter.

Speed Was Outside the Guidelines

David took instructions at court and explained that when it comes to most driving offences the Court follows set sentencing guidelines. In this case when driving in a 30mph zone the sentencing guidelines only go up to a presumed speed of 60 mph, the defendant’s speed was literally off the chart!

Notwithstanding this, David began taking details for mitigation from him including details of all his training to date, the excellent military service he has undertaken so far, and personal mitigation relating to his non-military life.

In court our client pleaded guilty and David then set about his task of keeping the driving ban, which was inevitable, to the absolute minimum. David addressed the court at length about the naivety of the defendant, his personal mitigation and the impact of losing his driving license for an extended period.

Short Disqualification

After hearing the mitigation the court sentenced the David’s client to a disqualification of just 40 days before imposing financial penalties. He was delighted with the outcome and his Superior Officer confirmed his job would be safe. The Magistrates, understanding the position, even wished him well in his future career.

Many people think they will never need a Criminal Solicitor but this goes to show the impact a solicitor can have even in more minor cases.  Without David his client may not have had the skills to present his case to the court and ensure his promising military career could continue.

Contact David Gittins

If you have any Criminal matters before the Court or Police Station, including road traffic matters, and wish to instruct David please contact his through the Chesterfield Office 01246 283000 or email her here.

Category Archives: News

Nottingham solicitor advocate Phil Plant recently represented a client before Nottingham Crown Court who face the serious allegation of inflicting Grievous Bodily Harm with Intent (Section 18 GBH).  After trial, he was found not guilty.

Assault Following False Allegations

Phil’s client was said, along with a co-accused, to have taken part in a brutal revenge attack on the victim following false allegations that he had assaulted a female friend.

The victim had been so badly beaten that was so badly beaten he suffered a displaced fractured of the jaw.  It also led to him suffering  almost total amnesia and his recollection was based on harrowing flashbacks of the incident that continued to haunt him.

Lesser Charge Instead of Section 18 GBH?

Upon conviction, our client could expect a substantial period of imprisonment.  The prosecution had told us that it would accept a plea to the lesser charge of inflicting GBH (Section 20 rather than section 18 GBH).  Phil’s client insisted that he was not involved at all, so chose to have his trial.

The victim asserted that the the complainant named both of the accused as the perpetrators of the attack.  Phil’s client did not accept that he was part of the attack, although he did witness it.

When questioned by Phil the complainant conceded that his client was not the kind of man who would behave in the manner he described, conceding perhaps that it appeared unlikely that his client did indeed take part in the attack.

The other defendant had given given different accounts during the course of the investigation.  At trial he maintained that it was our client who had carried out the assault.

Not Guilty Verdict

Having heard evidence tested through Phil’s expert cross-examination the jury found his client not guilty.  The other accused, separately represented, was convicted of the original offence and received a significant custodial sentence of several years.

Contact Phil Plant

If you wish to instruct Phil to represent you at trial before Nottingham Crown Court then please contact him on 0115 9599550 or email him here.

Category Archives: News

Nottingham criminal solicitor and regulatory lawyer Martin Hadley represented a landlord client.  He  had been visited by local council Enforcement Officers. They were inspecting homes in multiple occupation to ensure that landlords were abiding by the duties imposed upon them by Section 234 of the Housing Act 2004.

The Management Regulations under this Act are designed to ensure that tenants are provided with safe, good quality housing. The regulations place a heavy burden upon landlords.

Homes in Multiple Occupation

A house in multiple occupation is a property rented out by at least 3 people who are not from 1 ‘household’ (eg a family) but share facilities like the bathroom and kitchen. It’s sometimes called a ‘house share’. You must have a licence if you’re renting out a large HMO .  Further information can be found here.

The client’s premises were visited whilst he was undertaking renovation works.

Unfortunately, however, he had failed to maintain:-

• statutory notices
• fire alarms
• common parts in a safe condition
• hand rails, or
• boundary fences.

Interview Under Caution

The Council officers interviewed Martin’s client under caution and with a recording being made.  Sensibly, our client chose to instruct Martin prior to the interview and he was present to give advice and assistance throughout the interview process.

Martin’s client did not dispute the allegations.  Martin made representations to the council that this was a case that could be dealt with by way of a caution.  Such a warning would be taken into account if there were further allegations in the future and a prosecuting authority had to decide whether to bring court proceedings.

No Prosecution

The client was understandably happy with the outcome of the investigation.  Martin’s approach identified that although the matter was admitted there was an alternative to prosecution and secured the appropriate outcome.

Our client avoided what could have been an expensive day at court as it was likely that he would have had to pay a fine and the local authorities costs for investigating and prosecuting the matter.  In addition he would have received a criminal record.

Contact Martin Hadley

If you receive notice that you are under investigation by the local authority as a landlord with homes in multiple occupation, or for one of the range of offences that you can be prosecuted for then please contact Martin on 0115 9599550 or email him here.

Category Archives: News

Nottingham solicitor advocate Nick Walsh recently dealt with a sentence before Nottingham Crown Court.  Careful mitigation drew distinctions between his client and two others to ensure that he received a suspended sentence rather than an immediate prison sentence.

Struck With a Bottle

Nick’s client, along with others, had pleaded guilty to inflicting grievous bodily harm.   He was one of five people who had attended a house party.  Everyone present was drunk.

The behaviour of one of the group led to concerns from the victim that a female party-goer was to be assaulted.  As a result, the victim took hold of the aggressor.  He was then set upon by the group. During the assault he was punched and kicked and struck over the head with a bottle.

As a result of the assault he received a fractured jaw and had to undergo immediate surgery.  He was discharged from hospital two days later.

Negotiation of Lesser Charge

Only three of the five had been charged with offences.  They had originally been charged inflicting grievous bodily harm with intent to case really serious injury.  Negotiation at the Plea and Trial Preparation Hearing persuaded the prosecution to accept pleas to the lesser charge.

The probation service had prepared a pre-sentence report.  In that report, Nick’s client had accepted that he was the person who had struck the victim with the bottle.

Sentencing Guidelines

The sentencing guidelines relating to this offence can be found here.

One interpretation of the Guidelines would have placed this offence as one of greater harm, it being a sustained assault, and higher culpability as a weapon was used in the attack.  Had that been the case, the starting point for sentence for a ‘Category 1’ offence would have been three years imprisonment.

Further negotiation with the prosecutor and detailed representations to the Judge allowed the case to be treated as falling within Category 2 of the guideline.  This was due to the absence of pre-meditation.  As a result there was now a starting point of 18 months custody.

Careful Mitigation at Nottingham Crown Court

Although 17 at the time of the incident, Nick’s client was 18 at the point of sentence.  Nick was able to rely upon his client’s youth and more importantly what he had achieved in the ten months since the incident.  He had found work and broken off ties with his co-accused.  He also had compelling mitigation relating to his upbringing.

As a result, although it was Nick’s client who used a weapon in the incident the Judge at Nottingham Crown Court was able to distinguish between him and the others in the dock.  He received a sentence of 8 months suspended for 18 months with community requirements.   His co accused, however,  each received sentences 14 months’ immediate custody.

Contact Nick Walsh

Nick deals with clients at the police station, Magistrates’ and Crown Courts.  As a result he can provide you with continuity of representation.  If you wish to instruct Nick in any case then please telephone him on 0115 9599550 or email him here.

Category Archives: News

We are pleased to confirm that we have been awarded the legal aid contracts that we bid for earlier in the year.

These contracts allow us to provide publicly funded representation for our clients at the police station and Magistrates’ and Crown courts nationwide.

Duty Solicitor Work

VHS Fletchers will also be able to represent those clients who ask for the duty solicitor at police stations and courts across Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire.

Prison Law

As a firm we do not forget about clients once a case is concluded. We are pleased to confirm that we will be able to continue to represent our own and other clients who have issues that arise during the serving of any custodial sentence through our prison law department.

Contact Us

Please find your most convenient office here to contact one of our lawyers or email us here.