Category Archives: News

Mansfield crime solicitor Melanie Hoffman successfully argued special reasons so that her client did not receive a penalty or disqualification despite driving while over the legal limit.

Facts of the Case

Mel’s client had driven to his local pub to enjoy an evening with a friend.  This was a regular arrangement and he had every intention of walking home.

Instead of having a pleasant evening, he and his friend were assaulted in the pub by a group of strangers who entered the pub shortly before closing time.  They were heavily in drink and intent on causing further trouble and threats were made.

Upon leaving the pub, Mel’s client and his friend were again confronted by members of this group, who were by now brandishing tools as weapons.  He and his friend sought sanctuary in the works van, only for this to come under attack.

Some of  the group were able to open the passenger side door with a view to pulling the passenger from the van.  Mel’s client decided that despite having drunk alcohol, his only option was to drive the van off the pub car park.  He genuinely feared for his own and his friend’s safety.

Once on the road the van was pursued by the group who were running after the group and also going to vehicles.  As a result, our client had no alternative but to continued to drive in the direction of the local police station.  Whilst doing so  he called the police via his hands free kit to explain the situation.  The police station was unmanned so that the he needed to continue to drive,  ensuring that he kept in constant contact with the Police as he did so.

Eventually the pursuit came to an end and he was able to pull over and park the van,  knowing that the Police were in attendance to assist. The Police chose to carry out a breath test, which the Defendant failed. He was ultimately charged with a drink drive offence, despite what might have amounted to compelling public interest reasons to the contrary.

Special Reasons Identified

Upon taking instructions from her client, Mel correctly advised him that a plea of guilty would have to be entered as he had driven on a public road whilst over the legal limit to do.  The Crown would not consider withdrawing proceedings.   He would be able, however, to put a special reasons argument before the court to seek to avoid punishment and a driving disqualification that would normally follow such a plea.

He would argue that he had only driven because he genuinely feared for the safety of himself and his friend, and a sober individual would have done the same in these circumstances.

To ensure that her client placed the best argument before the Magistrates, Mel:

• took detailed statements from the friend and pub licensee
• ensured that this evidence was agreed by the prosecution
• played the 999 call made by her client to the court

At the court hearing, Mel’s client gave evidence on his own behalf, and by the conclusion of the case there could be no doubt that the facts were as he described.

The Magistrates found that special reasons did apply in this case.  He received an absolute discharge and no driving disqualification. There was no endorsement of the matter on his driving record and he did not have to pay any prosecution costs.

Contact Melanie Hoffman

It may be that if you are arrested for drinking and driving then you are interviewed by the police.  If so, it is vital that you seek our free and independent legal advice at that stage to make sure that you provide the detail that might provide you with a defence or special reasons to avoid a disqualification.

There are a number of other reasons why you should choose to instruct us at the police station.  They can be found here.

There are a limited number of special reasons that can be put forward to avoid a driving disqualification for a drink drive offence, so if we haven’t been at the police station you will want to instruct us for court proceedings.  We will always advise you about your entitlement to criminal legal aid for Magistrates’ Court representation.

Mel is currently on maternity leave, but if you are being investigated or face court proceedings then please contact her colleagues Tim Haines or Emma Cornel on 01623 675816 or use the contact form below:

Category Archives: News

Mansfield criminal solicitor Melanie Hoffman recently represented a client at a trial for allegations of domestic violence before Mansfield Magistrates’ Court.  He faced charges of assaulting both his his estranged wife and teenage daughter during a visit to the former matrimonial home.

In police interview Mel’s client had answered questions, raising self defence on both counts without the benefit of legal advice. This account was maintained at his first Magistrates’ Court appearance and he entered not guilty pleas.

Pressure from the Bench

These pleas were entered despite pressure being applied by the court in the form of an indication that custody would be the likely outcome in the event of conviction after trial.  Alternatively, there was mention of a community order following an early guilty plea.

Mel’s client did not give in to this pressure, maintaining his instructions.  As a result, Mel began her detailed trial preparation.  This thorough examination of the statements highlighted a number of inconsistencies in the prosecution written witness statements and video interviews.  This preparation allowed the careful editing of the video to ensure that information that was not relevant to the trial issue and would prejudice her client was removed.

Special Measure for Witnesses in Domestic Violence

At trial, Mel pursued a line of sensitive but meticulous cross-examination of both ex-wife and child witness.  The former had the benefit of being screened from Mel’s client, the latter was questioned across a video link.  This measures are common place in such trials.

During this questioning the inconsistencies previously noted by Mel during her case preparation began to emerge.

Mel’s client gave evidence on his own behalf.  This was consistent with the explanation that he had given to the police in interview several months before.

Detailed Closing Speech

In her closing speech, Mel’s grasp of the case allowed her to take the Magistrates through the detail of the case, highlighting what she believed amounted to significant inconsistencies between the accounts of the prosecution witnesses.  This was usefully contrasted with the consistent account given by her client.  Mel also reminded the Magistrates that they would have to take into account her client’s good character, relevant to whether he was telling the truth and likely to have committed the offences.

She submitted that this combination of factors meant that the prosecution had not made the Magistrates sure of her client’s guilt. The Magistrates agreed with Mel’s representations and found her client not guilty of both charges.  In their reasons they explained that owing to the inconsistencies high-lighted by Mel they weren’t sure that the defendant had acted in the manner alleged.

Restraining Order Refused

Unfortunately, there is now the opportunity for the prosecution to apply for a Restraining Order even where a person is found not guilty of all of the offences of domestic violence.  The Crown chose to make such an application here, but Mel successfully opposed this application  on the basis of the difficulties with the original evidence and the fact that there had been no suggestion of difficulties in the months between the allegation being made and trial.

Contact Melanie Hoffman

Are you at risk of losing your good name as a result of criminal allegations?  Do you face allegations of domestic violence?  If you wish to discuss a police investigation or court proceedings with Mel then please telephone her on 01623 675816 or email her here.

Category Archives: News

Nottingham crime solicitor Louise Wright was recently instructed in a case alleging police assault at Nottingham Magistrates’ Court. After a full day of trial her client was found not guilty after careful application of the relevant law.

Alleged Police Assault

Police were called to an alleged domestic disturbance.  Upon arrival, a female is standing outside the  address with her children.  She stated that her ex-partner was inside the address, refusing to leave.  The police officers entered and spoke with the male who they claimed refused to leave the property.

The prosecution’s case was that our client was arrested for a breach of the peace.  He was said to have been initially compliant but upon being taken to the police car he began to resist.  This resulted in CS spray being used and her client being placed in leg restraints.

The officer sustained a cut to her hand during the incident.  As a result our client was further arrested for assaulting the officer in the execution of her duty.

Two Part Defence

The client’s defence had two parts:

• that the officer had not arrested our client or explained why he was being taken against his will
• that an arrest for breach of peace will only be lawful if the threat of the breach is imminent.

Louise argued that as the concept of a breach of the peace was loosely defined, the powers afforded to those who intend to stop or prevent a breach should be closely scrutinised by the courts to ensure that there has been no undue interference with respect of Article 5 rights.

The magistrates were referred to the leading authority of R v Howell [1982].  This defined what a breach of the peace was. Agitated or excited behaviour, not involving any injury, nor any verbal threat, cannot be a breach of the peace.

A more recent case of Hawkes v DPP [2006]  decided that language and an abusive aggressive manner might justify an arrest on the ground of an apprehended breach of the peace.  To be arrested for an actual breach of the peace there had to be an incident of violence. As a result, as in Louise’s case, verbal abuse and a refusal to get into the police car did not amount to such an incident.

Closing Speech

At the conclusion of the case, Louise argued before the Magistrates that there had been no breach of the peace.  As a result the officers did not have a power if arrest.  As a result, their purported arrest was unlawful and Louise’s client’s behaviour, by contrast, was both lawful and reasonable.  Additionally, there were inconsistencies in the police evidence that did not assist the prosecution’s case.

Having considered the evidence and the submissions the Magistrates found Louise’s client not guilty of the charge of police assault.  Her client felt that in all of the circumstances he had been wronged, and as a result he was extremely appreciative that Louise had undertaken the detailed analysis of the evidence and the issues that allowed the right verdict.

Contact Louise Wright

If you have a case that involves the need to challenge police evidence, such as police assault, then please contact Louise Wright on 0115 9599550 or email her here.

Category Archives: News

Mansfield crime solicitor Tim Haines recently dealt with a drink drive sentence for a client who was nearly four times the legal limit to drive. Careful mitigation permitted the client to avoid what appeared to be an inevitable prison sentence.

Four Times the Drink Drive Limit

The background to the allegations was that Tim’s client had called an ambulance for his friend who had become unwell.  Unfortunately he chose to follow the ambulance in his own vehicle.  He was stopped by the police in the hospital grounds.  He provided a sample of 139 in breath at this time, following it up with a sample of 136 in breath at the police station.  The legal limit is 35.

Credit for Guilty Plea

On taking instructions, Tim advised the client as to the strength of the evidence and credit for a guilty plea.  As a result, the client entered a timely guilty plea.  He abandoned an intention to argue that his drink had been spiked.  The level of reading would, in effect, prohibit the success of such an argument.

The reading meant that the Magistrates would be considering a custodial sentence, but this was also our client’s second conviction for drink driving within 5 years. His previous case had been dealt with by way of a community order due to that high reading.

He had been disqualified from driving for a significant period but had  successfully completed the drink drivers rehabilitation course thereby reducing that driving ban imposed by a quarter.

Although a prison sentence could easily have been justified for the current offence on the basis of current sentencing guidelines, bearing in mind the reading and the previous recent conviction, Tim was able to persuade the court to impose a suspended term of imprisonment with rehabilitation requirements attached.

Detailed and Careful Mitigation

Following the mitigation put by Tim, the Magistrates stressed that they had drawn back from an immediate prison sentence due to the detailed and careful mitigation advanced by Tim.  This recognised that the sentencing process should combine both punishment and the rehabilitation of offenders.

Tim’s client was understandably relieved following the sentencing hearing.

Contact Tim Haines

If you face criminal investigations or proceedings then please contact Tim Haines immediately on 01623 675816 or email him here..  He will advise you as to how best to proceed in order to secure the best result for you, whether at the police station, Magistrates’ or Crown Courts.

Category Archives: News

Mansfield Crime Solicitor Tim Haines complied with court directions  in a ‘drug driving’ case which meant that the Crown were forced to drop a case on the day of trial.

Drug Driving

His client was charged with ‘drug driving’. The prosecution case was that he had been driving with nearly eight times the legal level of the drug amphetamine in his system. The Defendant disputed this evidence.  He was not helped in this because he had managed to misplace his blood sample provided by the police to allow his own expert analysis.

The obligation is on a client and his legal representative to complete a pre-trial review form each and every time a case is adjourned to trial in the Magistrates’ Court.  In this case, Tim completed the form in great detail.  I was made abundantly clear that the expert evidence relied upon by the prosecution could not be agreed as the findings were disputed.

Expert’s Findings Challenged

Perhaps more importantly, because the findings were challenged, the client directly challenged the prosecution to prove that the sample analysed was the correct one.  The Crown was told that it would have to prove each evidential link between the sample being taken and analysed.

Despite this early identification of the relevant issues the prosecution failed to obtain and serve this evidence.  As a result, on the day of the trial Tim made representations to the Magistrates that the prosecution case was fundamentally flawed.  The Crown could not prove to the Court that the sample analysed by its expert was that taken from the Defendant after arrest.

Not an ‘ambush’ defence

An attempt was made by the prosecution to suggest that it had been ‘ambushed’.  It was argued that the issue as to lack of continuity had not been raised by Tim sufficiently in advance of the trial. This contention could easily be refuted by reference to the case management form completed some 6 months earlier.  This made it clear what the evidential issues were.

The Magistrates understandably refused the Crown application to adjourn the case to a fresh trial date.   They were able to point out that the completed pre-trial form was fully and accurately completed.  As a result the Crown had had 6 months to respond to the evidential challenge raised by the Defence. The Crown were left with no option but to offer no evidence against the Tim’s client and the charge was dismissed.

Tim’s client left court without conviction and what would have been a mandatory driving disqualification of at least 12 months.  He was able to keep his employment, which would have been jeopardised if not lost altogether if he had been disqualified from driving.

Contact Tim Haines

Road traffic cases may seem straightforward but can be complex.  If you wish to speak to Tim about a police investigation or court case  for drug driving or any other matter please telephone him on 01623 675816 or email him here.

Category Archives: News

Nottingham crime solicitor Graham Heathcote recently had the pleasure of travelling to Northallerton Magistrates’ Court to represent a client for dangerous driving who he has represented at his two previous firms of solicitors.  The client chooses to have Graham represent him, presumably on the basis that he may well be able to work wonders with any case.  More of this below…

Dangerous Driving ended in flames?

Graham’s client faced an allegation of dangerous driving.  The allegation involved witnesses stating that he was undertaking, tailgating and attempting to manoeuvre between two moving vehicles in adjacent lanes.  The incident ended with his client’s vehicle off the road and in a field.  The vehicle had rolled onto him all but severing his arm.  The car then burst into flames.

Late Instructions

Graham’s client had such confidence in his abilities that he failed to keep four office appointments, finally attending the office 48 hours before the trial.   Graham only received the MG5, which is a summary of the allegation and the evidence, from the Crown Prosecution Service the day before the trial.  The actual witness statements were only served at 9.45a.m. on the morning of the trial. These included the accident investigation report.

All witnesses were in attendance and prepared to give evidence.  The court was in a position to hear the trial.  An offer of a plea to careless driving fell on deaf ears.

I Can’t Remember

Cross-examination of witnesses was limited as the client could not recall anything of the incident.  Although he gave evidence on his own behalf, that largely consisted of an admission of previous driving offences while asserting that the driving on this occasion didn’t sound like the way he would drive.

After being addressed on the burden and standard of proof, the law relating to dangerous driving and our client’s account the Magistrates found him not guilty of dangerous driving.  He was, however, found guilty of careless driving but kept his driving licence.

Contact Graham Heathcote

If you are denying a case and the evidence is somewhat stacked against you, you ought to telephone Graham on 0115 9599550 or email him here.

Category Archives: News

Chesterfield crime solicitor David Gittins recently defended a juvenile before Chesterfield Youth Court.  His client was charged with the serious offence of robbery based on a Facebook identification.

Notwithstanding a positive identification of his client by the victim, David’s meticulous preparation of the case led to successful representations to the prosecution.  These resulted in the Crown discontinued the case several weeks before the trial was due to start.

Continuity of Representation

David’s client had the advantage of having continuity of representation.  David provided advice and assistance to the client at Chesterfield Police station.  He then continued with this representation at court.

In brief the complainant told police that the client and another male had got out of a car, pushed and kicked him to the floor, and stole a packet of cigarettes. The complainant provided a description of those involved to the police.  He then  searched Facebook to see if he could recognise those involved. During this process he thought he recognised David’s client as one of the males involved.

Full Alibi Provided to Police

David attended the Police station and advised the client who denied the offence.  He stated that he was not there.  He went on to   provide a full alibi. This account was provided to the Police in the form of a written statement including the names of several witnesses who could support the client’s account. One of the witnesses was a social worker.  This was an attempt to ensure that the police conducted a proper investigation.

To David’s surprise, Instead of speaking to these witnesses the police focused time and money on conducting a Video Identification Procedure (VIPER).  Perhaps unsurprisingly, his client was identified again by the same witness as having been involved in the offence.

As a result, he was charged with the offence of robbery on the basis of the Facebook Identification without the other witnesses being spoken to by the police.  This was despite David’s representations to the contrary.

Early Preparation

David kept conduct of the matter when the case reached Chesterfield Youth Court.  He immediately set about to obtain the evidence to support the client’s alibi and undermine the identification evidence. David took statements from defence witnesses including social workers and family members, as well as contacting other agencies to prove where the his client was at specific times.

David also correctly identified that there were obvious differences between the description of the robber given by the complainant and David’s client.

Having gathered this alibi evidence and considered the quality of the prosecution evidence, David drafted a list of admissions for the  trial. His intention was that the prosecution agree these prior to trial.

These included maps, distances between specific locations and photographs of the Identification procedures. These were agreed by the prosecution.

Weakness in the Facebook Identification

Once they had been agreed, David wrote a detailed letter to the Prosecution outlining all of the difficulties they had with their case , particularly in the light of the agreed admissions and the alibi witnesses.  Upon further consideration of the case following those representations the Prosecution accepted David’s points, including the weaknesses in the Facebook identification.  The cases was discontinued without the need for a trial.

This case demonstrates how a diligent and focused criminal law specialist can make a real difference to the direction of a case.  Early preparation put pressure on the prosecution to review the case in our client’s favour.  Although we must have been confident of winning the case at trial, David’s approach removed all risk from any court hearing.

Contact David Gittins

Should you wish to contact Chesterfield crime solicitor David Gittins to discuss a new or ongoing case please telephone him at our Chesterfield office 01246 283000 or email him here.

Category Archives: News

A report from HM Crown Prosecution Inspectorate entitled Better Case Management: A Snapshot has been published this month.

What is Better Case Management?

Better Case Management (BCM) is a judicially driven initiative. It is intended that the program save resources, time and therefore money in terms of court hearings and file preparation.

It requires a number of steps to be taken in good time to progress cases early and prior to the first Crown Court hearing – the Plea and Trial Preparation Hearing (PTPH). This primarily requires action by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) – timely service of the prosecution evidence, Indictment and PTPH form by uploading them to the Digital Case System (DCS).

There needs to be early engagement with the defence representatives following service to enable issues to be properly identified. Those cases that can be dealt with by way of an early guilty plea following negotiation are expected to be identified by both parties at an early stage.

The first Plea and Trial Preparation Hearings were listed in February 2016 following the January roll out and the roll out of the Digital Case File which commenced in spring 2016 and was completed that May.

Inspectors visited five of the early adopter courts and the court observations in July 2016 took place within seven months of national roll out of BCM at the other 25 court centres visited during the fieldwork. The report is fairly described as a ‘snapshot’ and is hopeful that further progress will have been made since July.

Key Principles

The CPS identified ten key principles against which success can be judged. Unfortunately, the report appears to identify significant problems:

• Despite this being a national process, levels of compliance for some aspects of the scheme were as low as 10%
• Cases are not reviewed properly by the Crown either before the first Magistrates’ Court hearing or after sending to the Crown Court
• The police are charging cases in breach of guidance on charging without challenge from the CPS
• Limited evidence of CPS file ownership
• Although generally sufficient material was uploaded this was not always within the BCM timescales
• CCTV cannot be uploaded to the system and is not always available for a hearing
• Little evidence of active engagement between parties prior to the PTPH, with these deficiencies going unchallenged by the judiciary
• The absence of engagement results in additional hearings rather than fewer hearings
• PTPH hearings often had more emphasis on the timetabling process rather than being an informed discussion of the issues
• The CPS need to improve significantly if it is to contribute to the success of the initiative

The Future?

There is a broad view that Better Case Management and digital service is a positive innovation in terms of being able to provide early advice to those facing criminal proceedings. We view it as a positve step forward. It is, however, dependent on the CPS maintaining focus on the initiative with a view to driving the improvements needed above.

The report appears optimistic that this is achievable, but we will have to wait and see.

The full report can be found here.

Category Archives: News

VHS Fletchers Solicitors is pleased to announce that on 26 September 2016 Elliott Moulster joined the firm as a trainee solicitor.  He will be based at our Ilkeston office and be supervised by experienced crime and regulatory solicitor Andy Siddall.

Elliott graduated from Nottingham Trent University this year having achieved a First in his undergraduate law degree and a Distinction in his combined postgraduate Masters and Legal Practice Course.

It is intended that he concentrate primarily upon prosecution work under our contract with the Health & Safety Executive.  Through his work with Andrew Broome he will also gain experience of dealing with all aspects of firearms law and licencing.

Regulatory solicitor Martin Hadley will provide training in relation to the defence of professionals such as pharmacists being investigated for misconduct or facing prosecution.

Elliott will also attain qualification as an accredited police station representative to allow him to represent our clients at the police station.

This qualification will build on experience gained earlier in his studies.  As part of his sandwich degree , Elliott undertook a placement year at a criminal law firm in Central London. He worked within the firm’s general crime department and helped defend a wide variety of offences.  He has worked on cases at every stage of the court process from initial consultation and instruction to case management and final hearings.

A significant portion of Elliott’s placement work consisted of complex fraud cases and confiscation proceedings. Through these cases, he has developed a talent for understanding and analysing volumes of complex information in order to locate key details. On one particular fraud case with numerous co-defendants he spent a month instructing counsel at the Old Bailey.

Beyond his studies, Elliott has been able to gain considerable legal experience through volunteering. He has advised clients on various areas of law at his University’s Legal Advice Centre. He has also been able to gain unique advocacy experience as a Social Security Tribunal Representative.

Through this volunteering, Elliott has successfully represented some very vulnerable clients. In doing so he has been able to communicate in a sensitive and user friendly manner.

Elliott can be contacted by telephone at our Ilkeston office on 0115 9441233 or by email here.

Category Archives: News

VHS Fletchers are delighted to confirm that Serena Simpson qualified as a criminal solicitor at Chesterfield on 1 November 2016.  This followed the successful completion of her Training Contract with the firm.

New Criminal Solicitor

Serena will be based at our Chesterfield office representing clients in all aspects of their cases – police stations advice, magistrates’ court representation and crown court litigation.

Serena joined us in April 2015 after we took on the staff and case load of the criminal department of Banner Jones Solicitors. It was soon clear that Serena has a passion for criminal work and we made good on our promise of a training contract.

Over the last 18 months Serena has demonstrated this passion and diligence while working with us.

Police Station Accredited

She quickly attaining accreditation to be allowed to represent clients at the police station for the full range of offence.  She can also advise clients whether they come to the firm due to a specific request for our advice or through the duty solicitor scheme.

Serena now regularly advises those detained at Chesterfield Police Station, representing clients in a variety of matters from more simple driving matters to complicated and serious sexual assaults, including rape.

Putting Clients at Ease

Serena’s bright and friendly outlook will put clients at ease in the stressful and often alien environment of the police station. Serena builds on her quiet but effective manner by being available to deal with any queries or problems and provide reassurance post interview.

Crown Court Litigator

At the same time Serena has also been undertaking litigation on Crown Court cases.  This role has required Serena to work alongside  in-house barristers and solicitor advocates preparing some of the most serious matters to be heard by a jury.  She has been keen to attend court in support of the advocate and client, and has gained significant experience in the effective preparation and presentation of cases.

As part of her route to qualification as a criminal solicitor Serena has attended additional courses relating to the preparation and presentation of cases before the Magistrates’ Court.

Magistrates’ Court Training

We believe that training and development are extremely important and additionally she has had the opportunity of working alongside and shadowing our experienced Magistrates’ advocates David Gittins, Kevin Tomlinson and Ben Strelley.  This has involved the preparation of cases involving assessing evidence, identifying issues, taking instructions, speaking with witnesses and preparing cases for contested hearings.

You can be confident in instructing Serena that despite recently qualifying Serena already has substantial experience in her chosen field of criminal law.  This experienced is back by her organisation and intention to do the best for her clients.

Although some may say it is beginner’s luck, we would argue that the fact that her very first piece of advocacy before the court resulted in a prosecution discontinuance was due to her analysis of the evidence and her representations to the Crown.