We hold criminal legal aid contracts that allow us to continue representing our existing and new clients under the legal aid scheme from our offices in Nottingham, Derby, Chesterfield, Mansfield and Newark.
Our Newark Office
Our office in Newark demonstrates our commitment to providing advice and representation to local communities who in other ways have been let down by the justice system.
VHS Fletchers NewarkVHS Fletchers Derby office
Newark no longer has a police station where suspects can be interviewed and the Magistrates’ Court closed several years ago. Those appearing in court now have to travel over 20 miles to Nottingham Magistrates’ Court, while those arrested are taken to Mansfield police station, a similar distance.
Local Offices Serving Local Communities
VHS Fletchers has made the decision that we will be able to provide criminal advice and representation in the police station, Magistrates’ and Crown Courts while being based in the heart of the communities that we serve.
We will hopefully contribute to reducing the stress and anxiety that investigations and proceedings can bring by making it easy and affordable for our clients to visit their legal representatives in a local office.
This approach should also allow for our clients to receive continuity in terms of the advisers and solicitors they meet, which we know clients value.
If you face police investigation then advice and assistance at the police station will always be free under criminal legal aid. Magistrates’ criminal legal aid is both means and merits tested, and means tested for the Crown Court.
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
Mansfield Magistrates’ Court
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.
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:
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.
Nottingham Magistrates’ Court
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.
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.
Mansfield Magistrates’ Court
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.
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.
