Category Archives: News

Mansfield crime solicitor Melanie Hoffman travelled to Chesterfield Magistrates to represent a local client facing allegations of common assault.

The allegation was serious, said to involve punches and kicks to a female complainant while she was on the ground.  Further, the evidence appeared extremely strong – aside from the complainant there were four other prosecution witnesses who claimed that the assault had taken place.

Owing to the number of prosecution witnesses this was a complex and difficult case to prepare.  Mel had to decide what the relevant issues were and tailor her preparation and questioning to that end.

Each witness gave a different version of events, and the questioning of these witness had to bring these inconsistencies to the fore.  The purpose of this cross-examination was to show that even though there was agreement between witnesses as to an assault taking place, their evidence as a whole could not be relied upon to make the Magistrates sure of her client’s guilt.

After hearing all of the evidence in the case the Magistrates came to the conclusion that the  inconsistencies between witnesses as to how the incident occurred and who was even there meant they could not be sure that an offence had even been committed.

As a result, Mel’s relieved client was found not guilty of the charge.  Additionally, he was legally aided which means that her representation was free of charge to him.

This case shows the benefits of instructing an experienced trial advocate such as Mel, who is able to make an early decision about how best to approach the case and direct all preparation to that end.

Should you wish to contact Mansfield crime solicitor Melanie Hoffman, please telephone her at our Mansfield office 01623 675816 or email her here.  If you wish to speak to one of our lawyers at your local office then please contact us.

Category Archives: News

Recently, Nottingham crime solicitor and partner Martin Hadley proved the truth of the maxim ‘if you don’t ask, you don’t get’ when he represented a client charged with cannabis production before Nottingham Magistrates’ Court.

The client had been arrested at his home address after the police had been called to an alleged incident of domestic violence.  Although that was not pursued, the police who attended discovered the client and 20 cannabis plants.

These were being grown in circumstances which could only be described as professional and commercial including an irrigation system, additional Carbon Dioxide and extraction fans.

The evidence suggesting that Martin’s client was involved in the commercial production of cannabis was apparently strong.  The matter may well have been sent to the Crown Court to be dealt with, and a court would be thinking of a sentence, after unsuccessful trial, of 12 months imprisonment.  The client would also be at risk of confiscation proceedings.

The client’s instructions were that he had not been staying at his home address, but had instead been at his partner’s house.  He had only become aware of the cannabis plants on the day the police were called.  He accepted that he had spoken to the person growing the plants and watched him water them, and had not asked him to move them or contacted the police.

The prosecution was persuaded to substitute an allegation of permitting premises to be used for the growing of cannabis.  Martin’s client pleaded guilty.  He was then sentenced on the basis that he had only been involved in the offence for a matter of hours.

The Magistrates chose to impose a conditional discharge.  This is an unusual disposal for what was apparently a serious allegation.  The court decided that given the character of the offender and the nature of the crime, punishment would not be appropriate.

Martin’s client was released and the offence registered on their criminal record. No further action will be taken unless they commit a further offence within the period of the discharge.

This case illustrates the value of instructing an experienced criminal practitioner to represent you if charged with a criminal offence.  Martin’s years of experience mean that he has the confidence of both the prosecutor and the court, so when he makes a constructive suggestion to progress a case people are likely to listen.

If you are charged with cannabis production or other matters you can contact Martin at the Nottingham office on 0115 9599550 or by email here.

Category Archives: News

Mansfield crime solicitor Tim Haines represented a client for an allegation of production of cannabis recently.  Although there were only 8 plants discovered, they were found in situ with a sophisticated hydroponic system, cash, mobile phones, scales and what the police alleged were dealer lists.

As is common, the police had sought a statement from a police expert who maintained that all of these items of evidence were important, and in combination he was sure that the client was involved in the commercial supply of cannabis.

If that was the case, the sentencing guidelines for production of cannabis would place the client as having a significant role in a category 3 offence.  This would mean that the starting point on sentence would be 12 months custody, within a range of 6 months to 3 years.

Tim took full instructions from his client.  These were that the client was a cannabis user himself, and although he accepted supply to others, this was only to a limited number of people who were his friends and also cannabis users.

These instructions were at odds with the Crown expert.  As a result, there was a risk that the client, even on entering a guilty plea, would end up before the Crown Court for a hearing to decide the basis on which he would be sentenced, and for eventual sentence.  This would add to the client’s understandable anxiety as the proceedings became protracted.

Tim’s experience and familiarity with such cases meant that he was able to engage in credible negotiations with the prosecutor.  He was able to persuade the prosecution to disregard the conclusion of its own expert, and instead to proceed to sentence on the basis of his client’s account.

Carefully prepared mitigation built on the concession by the Crown and Tim was able to persuade the Magistrates that the case could be kept in their court.  Instead of a custodial sentence, a community order with unpaid work was imposed.  Confiscation proceedings were not pursued.

Tim was able to represent the client under the government funded legal aid scheme which means that his representation was free of charge to his client.

If you are to be interviewed by the police or face charges for drug related offences please contact your nearest office.  Alternatively you can email us here.  If you wish to speak to Tim directly then telephone 01623 675816 or email him here.

Category Archives: News

Nottingham solicitor advocates Phil Plant and Jon Hullis had a successful visit to the Court of Appeal this week.  In February of this year, their clients had been sentenced to 13 years and 4 years 8 months respectively at Nottingham Crown Court.

Phil’s client was initially arrested for an allegation of supply of heroin to Jon’s client, our other client being arrested for possession with intent to supply the drug.  The transaction involved the purchase of £7000 of heroin.

While on bail for this offence, Phil’s client was then arrested in possession of twelve packages of 1 kilogram of heroin, and faced a separate charge of possession with intent to supply heroin.

Unsurprisingly, the sentencing guidelines for these offences mean that it is almost inevitable that lengthy custodial sentences will be imposed.

As a result, the fact that prison sentences of some length were imposed came as no surprise to either client.  We, however, were concerned that taking into account the guidelines and the stage at which the guilty pleas were entered the final sentences were simply too long.

Phil and Jon drafted positive advices on appeal and the necessary grounds of appeal, arguing that the sentences imposed were ‘manifestly excessive’.   The papers were favourably reviewed by a single judge at the London Court and the matter was listed before the full court for argument.

In delivering the judgement of the Court of Appeal, Lord Justice Burnett shared the view that the sentences were too long in all the circumstances of the case.  The sentences were reduced by 2 years and 8 months, and 8 months, respectively.

A third appellant, separately represented, was unsuccessful in a similar appeal.

Cases such as this show that our solicitor advocates properly identify the issues of importance in a client’s case, and are able to provide representation from early stages of proceedings through to the conclusion of a case at the Court of Appeal.

Should you wish to discuss Crown Court or appeal proceedings with one of our lawyers please contact your nearest office or email us here.

Category Archives: News

Taxi drivers that are licenced by Nottingham City could be at risk of having their badges revoked or suspended if Council plans for the taxi licence are introduced.  The plans are currently delayed following disagreement over the penalty points system.

Nottingham City Council is considering introducing a “Driver Improvement Penalty Point Scheme” for taxi drivers. The scheme proposes the imposition of penalty points on taxi drivers for a variety of breaches of taxi licence conditions. The points range from four to six, depending on the breach. If a driver gets twelve points within a three year period, action will be taken, including suspending and revoking the taxi licence. This means that for two relatively minor incidents, a taxi driver could face losing his badge, and with it, his livelihood.

Some of the breaches could also amount to driving offences. The points imposed by the City Council on the driver’s taxi record would be separate from any points put on their Driving Licence as a result of a fixed penalty notice or prosecution for the same offence.

The table of breaches and points is below.

Nottingham City Council say that this scheme would have the effect of improving driving standards. Whether or not this is correct, or necessary, the scheme would inevitably have the effect of causing many more drivers to face the prospect of losing their taxi badges and their livelihoods, either for a period of suspension, or permanently.

Other ideas being considered by Nottingham City Council include the restriction of granting licences to potential taxi drivers with driving offences on their record and temporary licence suspensions for taxis entering restricted streets.

In addition to the proposed Driver Improvement Penalty Point Scheme, taxi licensing authorities can suspend or revoke taxi licences for a variety of reasons. The test used is whether the driver is a “fit and proper person”. A council may decide that a driver is not a fit and proper person based on their driving record, other criminal offences or for any other reason.

Anyone who is informed that their taxi licence is to be suspended or revoked by a taxi licencing authority has the right to appeal against that decision to the Magistrates Court. Once a Notice of Appeal is lodged at the court, the taxi driver can continue to drive while awaiting the appeal hearing. In Nottingham, it usually takes about 3 months from making the appeal until the final appeal hearing.

If you are facing a suspension or revocation of your taxi licence, we can help by advising you on the merits of an appeal and our experienced solicitors can represent you at the appeal hearing.

Please contact Jameel Malik at our Nottingham office on 0115 9599550 or email him here.

Category Archives: News

Recently we outlined details of a client’s case here where both a contested hearing and immediate custody were avoided.  Derbyshire Solicitor Advocate William Bennett and Senior Crown Court Litigator Ruth Campbell dealt with the case.

Our client has taken the time to complete our client feedback questionnaire and declared that she was ‘very satisfied’ with our overall level of service.  Our ‘excellent service’ needed no improvement.

Her comments were all the more pleasing as she had previously dealt with Banner Jones solicitors whose criminal staff and case load we took on in April 2015.

She went on to say that VHS Fletchers would be a first choice of recommendation to anyone who would need an ‘excellent firm of solicitors’.

The form was not enough for the client to spell out the level of service she felt she received, and she continued on an additional sheet to set out that the help and advice of William and Ruth throughout the case was ‘extremely helpful and 100% brilliant’.  She remarked on Ruth’s compassion and understanding, and felt that without this support and advice she would have ‘crashed’.  Our help allowed her to ‘remain strong’.

Aside from being relieved about the outcome, our client is taking full advantage of all of the opportunities that the court sentence is affording her.  She is receiving excellent help from her probation officer, due to meet with Addaction, and has managed to cut her alcohol intake by half.

We will always welcome feedback. Positive feedback will show staff that they are doing things right, whereas constructive feedback will show us, as a firm, where we need to change to continue to improve the first class service that we try to give all of our clients.

If you have a case that you wish to discuss with a Derbyshire solicitor then please contact your most convenient office.  You can contact Ruth by email or William Bennett here.

Category Archives: News

Domestic violence cases are frequently before the court for trial.  Domestic violence is defined as any incident or pattern of incidents of controlling, coercive, threatening behaviour, violence or abuse between those aged 16 or over who are, or have been, intimate partners or family members regardless of gender or sexuality.

The abuse can encompass, but is not limited to:

• psychological
• physical
• sexual
• financial
• emotional abuse.

In many cases a client may have unrealistic expectations as to whether a witness, who he or she might still be in a relationship with, will attend court to give evidence against them.

Witnesses will often respond to a Crown request for their attendance, and of course ultimately the prosecution can ask that the witness be forced to attend.  Over the years the prosecution have resorted to the latter course of action more and more frequently, particularly in Crown Court cases. In some cases the evidence may permit the prosecution to proceed without the complainant.

If a client is sentenced for such an allegation, the court will take into account the seriousness of the assault, the stage at which admissions (if any are made), the wishes of the complainant (although these are not decisive) and the client’s attitude to the offence.

Particular sentencing considerations are set out here.

As a result, if a client is to embark upon a trial it is very important to them that they win.  In a recent case dealt with by Mansfield Solicitor Tim Haines his client faced an allegation of assault.  During an argument with his partner in the home it was said that he had pushed and shoved his partner, and taken hold of her.  The allegation was aggravated by the fact that his young child was said to have been present.

Tim’s client had always maintained that the incident had not happened and it had been fabricated by the complainant to support orders being sought in the family court.  The challenging of evidence in those terms may often be difficult, but in this case our client was helped by the fact that he was of previous good character.

This was important as it would be potential evidence that Tim’s client was less likely to have committed the offence and more likely to be telling the truth about what happened.  Rather than simply rely on this Tim chose to call two character witnesses to give evidence to the court about his client’s character, usual demeanour and in particular how he conducted himself in his relationship.

The District Judge found this a difficult case as both the alleged victim and Tim’s client were credible witnesses.  Applying the burden and standard of proof, and putting weight on our client’s good character, the Judge could not be sure that he had committed the offence and the client was found not guilty.

Tactical considerations that can only come from an experienced trial advocate such as Tim can often be key when deciding how to present a case before the courts.  This is true whether the case is a trial or a sentencing hearing.  You can be sure that Tim will be alive to all of the possible outcomes of the various strategies that can be adopted and give you the best advice in your particular case, as he did in this one.

Should you wish to discuss a case involving domestic violence with Tim then please make an appointment to see him at our Mansfield office by telephoning 01623 675816 or email him here.

Category Archives: News

Senior Crown Court Litigator Laura Clarson prepared a case for a not guilty verdict.  Her client faced two allegations of dwelling house burglary, aggravated vehicle taking and simple taking of a vehicle without the owners consent.  If found guilty he would have received at least 3 years in prison.

Taken at face value, the evidence would appear extremely strong.  The client had been arrested having been traced to where he was hiding behind a car by a police dog.

The police had recovered two watches stolen from the burglary.  This had been committed less than an hour before the client’s arrest.  They were found next to a gate that Laura’s client had jumped over during the pursuit

Keys from a vehicle taken was found under the car our client was hiding behind. When searched he was also in possession of a mask and gloves.

The defence of the case was made that much more difficult by the fact that our client had a substantial record of previous convictions for burglary offence and vehicle taking.

Laura’s client was passionate in his denials of the allegation.  He maintained that a second person was responsible for the offending rather than him.  Presentation of this defence was potentially hampered by the fact that he failed to give this explanation at the police station when represented by another firm of solicitors.

Her preparation, on her client’s instructions, began to show how the prosecution case was perhaps not as strong as it first looked and a not guilty verdict could be secured.

The following points were usefully made:

• A second male was present although police officers could not agree about that fact
• The dog handler could have traced the second male had pursuing officers mentioned him
• Although there were eye witnesses, identification parades did not take place as Laura’ client did not match the descriptions
• Defence established that a second male had had these allegations ‘taken into consideration’ when sentenced earlier

Although emotional about what he said were the lies of the police as to what had happened on that day, Laura’s client gave clear and compelling evidence as to his lack of involvement.  His account was tested by the prosecutor in robust cross examination but our client did not waver.

After a little over five hours the jury returned with a not guilty verdict.  Laura’s client was understandably relieved, and pleased that Laura, his barrister and the jury gave his account the weight that it deserved.

Our client was represented by counsel Dan Bishop from 7 Bedford Row who gave clear and helpful tactical advice on how to best present the case to the jury.  Decisions were made has to how best to cross-examine the police officers (gently or robustly) and whether to call as a witness the person who had admitted the offences upon sentence.  Ultimately, the right decisions were made.

This case demonstrates the benefits of instructing a firm with a specialist Crown Court department.  Laura spends all of her working day preparing the most serious cases that come before the court.  This may be for trials or sentence, but her experience means that she will give each case the attention to detail that it needs.

She will also be able to advise you as to the availability of legal aid.  Information can be found here and here.

If you have a case that you wish to discuss with Laura please contact her at our Nottingham office by telephone 0115 9599550 or by email here.

Category Archives: News

Advice given by Mansfield solicitor Tim Haines in a money laundering case was recently remarked upon by the District Judge passing sentence.  Particularly, the Judge made it clear that he had been able to avoid imposing an immediate prison sentence because Tim’s client had accepted his sensible and proper advice on plea and offence category.

The case involved an allegation of money laundering with a value a little over £15 000.  Money had come into our client’s account that were the result of fraudulent transfers from two different company accounts.  The money had then been withdrawn and used to buy Euros which were then collected by a courier.   A percentage of this money was said to have been retained as a reward.

Money laundering is viewed as serious by the courts as it often a crucial part of many serious criminal offences.  Many cases are dealt with before the Crown Court and often result in a prison sentence of many months.

Tim’s client was the only person arrested as a result of the investigation.  Others involved had gone to ground.  The preparation of the case involved the careful consideration of the paper trail in the case.  This showed that there was a strong case against our client.  Upon receiving that advice she accepted she would be pleading guilty to the offence.

Thereafter, all efforts were directed to ensuring that the case was placed in the correct category of the sentencing guidelines which can be found here:

Money Laundering Sentencing Guidelines

Although the value placed the offending in a less serious category, the sentence would depend upon the level of involvement in the offence, or culpability.

For example, as the client had full control of the bank accounts, withdrew the money, converted it into Euros and arranged for its collection, and received a percentage for that service it could have been said that her involvement amounted to ‘medium culpability’ which would have meant that the case was likely to have been sent to the Crown Court for sentence, with a starting point of 18 months immediate custody.

Through careful preparation and considered advocacy, Tim was able to persuade the Judge that his client involvement was one of ‘lesser culpability’.  This, in combination with the arguments put forward in mitigation, meant that the Judge was able to sentence her to a short suspended sentence with unpaid work and a small amount of compensation.

This type of case demonstrates the benefits of instructing Tim to deal with your case.  His careful advice will always start with a detailed analysis of the case that you face, followed by realistic advice as to any strengths and weaknesses.

Tim will then spend the time necessary seeking your account of the incident, providing you full advice as to whether you have an arguable defence, and give you sensible advice as to the likely outcome of either a trial or sentence.

Should you wish to discuss your case with Tim then please make an appointment to see him at our Mansfield office by telephoning 01623 675816 or email him here.

Category Archives: News

VHS Fletchers, as well as dealing with current criminal cases, also hold a contract with the Legal Aid Agency to provide advice on prison law matters and appeals.  This means that the advice, assistance and representation that we are able to give does not cease at the conclusion of any current criminal case.  We will be able to advise and assist in any joint enterprise appeals.

This is of importance to two clients that our prison law specialist Irene Tolley  represented at trial in 2004, when working for Varley Hadley Siddall solicitors.

At the time the case was one said to have ‘made British legal history’ , with the prosecutor announcing that he did not know of any comparable case.  The officer in the case described the prosecution as ‘unprecedented’, with the Crown Prosecution Service describing the case as ‘the first of its kind’.

On behalf of the clients Irene and counsel pursued appeals to the Court of Appeal and subsequently to the Criminal Cases Review Commission but without success.

Following legal developments earlier in the year set out below, Irene was in the process of locating the clients as they made contact with her.

On 18 February 2016 the Supreme Court delivered a landmark judgement in the case of R v Jogee.

This ‘re-stated’ the principles of criminal joint enterprise in murder trial’s.  The court decided that for the last 30 years the interpretation of the law had been in error, ‘…equat[ing] foresight with an intention to assist, as a matter of law; the correct approach is to treat it as evidence of intent’.

The difference now is that a jury must be sure that a secondary party, a person who did not themselves carry out the fatal act, must now intend that the offence is carried out before they can be convicted of murder.

The Supreme Court were careful, however, to stress that the decision would not open the floodgates to 30 years of appeals on this issue:

‘…it does not follow that it will have been important on the facts to the outcome of the trial or to the safety of the conviction.  Moreover, where a conviction has been arrived at by faithfully applying the law as it stood at the time, it can be set aside only by seeking exceptional leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal out of time.  That court has power to grant such leave, and may do so if substantial injustice be demonstrated, but it will not do so simply because the law applied has now been declared to have been mistaken…’

As a result, the pursuit of any appeal after such a period of time cannot simply rely upon a perceived ‘change of law’ in joint enterprise.  Prospective appellants will have to demonstrate that as a result there has been ‘substantial injustice’ to the individual looking at the case as a whole.

Irene, along with original counsel, are taking these appeals forward, but there is much further work to do.

Should you wish to discuss a potential joint enterprise appeal with Irene, please contact her at the Nottingham office by letter or telephone 0115 9599550.  Alternatively, she can be contacted by email here.

Irene is able to assist with other appeals and a range if prison law matters.  Information about that can be found here.

UPDATE:  Commentary from Andrew Wesley about the Jogee decision and joint enterprise can be found on the ITV website here.