Tag Archives: defence

News

Dangerous dog prosecutions – avoiding the destruction of your dog

dangerous dog prosecutionsIt is often said that there is no such thing as a dangerous dog, only a dangerous owner.  While the criminal law often refers to a ‘dangerous dog’,  the offences pursued in dangerous dog prosecutions relate to a dog being ‘dangerously out of control’.

Section 10 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 states that:

‘a dog shall be regarded as dangerously out of control on any occasion on which there are grounds for reasonable apprehension that it will injure any person (or assistance dog), whether or not it actually does so.’

Penalties

The penalties for ‘dangerous dog’ offences are severe.  They include  imprisonment of up to 14 years where death is caused.  What is is not often understood is that an offence may lead to the destruction of the dog as well.

A discretion to order destruction?

In relation to some offences the court may order destruction.  In others, the court must order destruction unless assured (by imposing strict conditions) that the dog would not constitute a danger to public safety.

When deciding whether a dog would constitute a danger to public safety, the court—

(a) must consider—

(i) the temperament of the dog and its past behaviour, and

(ii) whether the owner of the dog, or the person for the time being in charge of it, is a fit and proper person to be in charge of the dog, and

(b) may consider any other relevant circumstances.

Avoiding Destruction of a ‘dangerous dog’

defending dangerous dog prosecutionsIn all cases where a court is considering destruction, attention must be drawn to the court’s power to order instead ‘contingent destruction’.  This will prevent the dog’s destruction provided that the conditions imposed are met.

The key case in dangerous dog prosecutions remains R v Flack [2008] EWCA Crim 204 where the following criteria were established:

“The relevant principles that can be made in respect of a dog whose owner has been convicted under section 3(1) of the 1991 Act of failing to keep a dog under control in a public place are that:

(1) The court is empowered under section 4(1) of the 1991 Act to order the destruction of the dog.

(2) Nothing in that provision shall require the court to order destruction if the court is satisfied that the dog would not constitute a danger to public safety: section 4(1)(a) of the 1991 Act.

(3) The court should ordinarily consider, before ordering immediate destruction, whether to exercise the power under section 4A(4) of the 1991 Act to order that, unless the owner of the dog keeps it under proper control, the dog shall be destroyed (“a suspended order of destruction”).

(4) A suspended order of destruction under that provision may specify the measures to be taken by the owner for keeping the dog under control whether by muzzling, keeping it on a lead, or excluding it from a specified place or otherwise: see section 4(a)(5) of the 1991 Act.

(5) A court should not order destruction if satisfied that the imposition of such a condition would mean the dog would not constitute a danger to public safety.

(6) In deciding what order to make, the court must consider all the relevant circumstances which include the dog’s history of aggressive behaviour and the owner’s history of controlling the dog concerned in order to determine what order should be made.”

What we can do to help

It is unlikely that legal argument alone will suffice to convince a court to order contingent destruction. In almost all dangerous dog prosecutions you will need the assistance of an expert in dog behaviour, alongside expert advocacy. We can arrange for the preparation of suitable expert reports and provide the advocacy for you.

Instruct an expert in defending dangerous dog prosecutions

If you are facing criminal proceedings that relate to an allegedly dangerous dog then please contact us as soon as possible. Our solicitors are well versed in this aspect of the law and will ensure your best defence is put forward before the court.

This will also include the best argument possible to ensure that your dog is not destroyed.

You can find your nearest office here to seek our specialist advice. 

defending dangerous dog prosecutions solicitors
Our offices across the East Midlands

Alternatively, you can use the contact form below.

Contact

 

News

Defending a sexual offence before the Crown Court

LIAR?

Liar, an important ITV drama from 2017, gripped the nation.  Early in the series people were reaching conclusions as to whether Laura, played by the actress Joanne Froggatt (better known for her role as Anna Bates in Downton Abbey), was telling the truth when she accused surgeon Andrew of raping her.

For most of us, this was a highly watchable drama.  We flip flopped between whom to believe.  Our perceptions changed over time by the sophisticated script and plot devices.

It is no surprise that some people formed an opinion after only one or two episodes because recent research demonstrated that half of the jurors might reach a guilty verdict before even going to deliberate with other jurors.

 

We know that people are on occasion willing to change their minds, just as you might when the plot unfolds.

It is vital therefore in cases alleging a sexual offence that a strong case is advanced from the start, laying a solid foundation for a successful defence.

Our Role

For our clients and their families, facing an accusation of rape or other sexual crime can be a horrendous experience. So, what is our role and how do we defend such cases?

Reactive and Proactive defence for a sexual offence

We always start with a reactive approach. The complainant states they were drunk, our client states they were in fact sober. We entered the bedroom uninvited says one person, we were invited in, says our client, and so on.

Viewers can build the start of a defence with this important work, but we do not have the benefit of the incident in question playing before us on a TV screen, with the truth revealed at the end.

Instead we have only the competing versions, and it might feel as if it is simply one word against another, and often it is unless you seek further evidence.

It is a proactive approach to case preparation which makes a difference. We always ensure that:

  • All relevant witnesses are traced.
  • Any CTTV evidence secured.
  • Forensic evidence analysed.
  • Background checks completed.
  • Details of false allegations pursued.

and even, as alluded to already in Liar, any psychiatric issues are explored.

Some examples of recent cases that we have successfully concluded by Crown Court litigator Lisa Sawyer can be found here:

Sexomnia

Rape allegation defended

Historic sex case defended

Senior Crown Court Litigator Lisa Sawyer

We instruct a combination of in-house advocates and independent barristers to ensure you receive the best representation.

We also understand the personal toll legal proceedings will take on you and your family, and our caseworkers such as Lisa offer a compassionate and reassuring voice at a time when the future may at times appear very dark.

Our Services

The solicitors, Crown Court litigators and advocates VHS Fletchers Solicitors have decades of experience in defending cases of this type involving a sexual offence.

Before entrusting your case to anyone else come and meet us, get a feel for our work ethic, and ensure you are confident that you are receiving the best defence possible.

You only get one chance to get this right, so the alternative is unthinkable.

We offer private client services at affordable rates, and legal aid may well be available.

So, if you are arrested for, or charged with any offence, call your nearest office to arrange an appointment, or use the enquiry form below.

Contact

 

 

News

Remorse, regret and credit for your guilty plea

In matters being investigated by the police or before the criminal courts it is sometimes the case that a simple act of contrition, genuinely felt and communicated, can alter a case outcome significantly.

For example, a timely admission and expression of sorrow can make the difference between a formal resolution, such as caution or charge or persuade the police to consider an out of court community resolution.

Credit for your guilty plea will attract the automatic discount on sentence, but it is a demonstration of genuine regret and remorse that may make all the difference.

Remorse might open the door to restorative justice

Restorative justice is now a popular out of court disposal.  Such a resolution is preferable to almost all other outcomes when guilt is not in doubt. Research shows that the process can benefit both the victim and the offender.

Other out of court disposals such as driver awareness courses can also have an impact on an offender.  This will particularly be the case where a defendant is willing to address their behaviour.  Few participants will leave the course undisturbed by the graphic images of a child hit by a speeding vehicle.

In court, it can sway a bench in some cases to impose a more lenient punishment, so because of this we always work with clients to ensure mitigation is advanced adequately at all stages.

Of course, sorry in itself might not mean much, what are you sorry for?  Is it for being caught?  Or is it because you find yourself before a court?  Could it be more than that and therefore does it amount to genuine remorse?

Genuine remorse and sentencing guidelines

This is an important question in sentencing terms because ‘genuine remorse’ is a mitigating factor in almost all sentencing guidelines and can make a substantial difference to the outcome.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines remorse as being:

‘A feeling of compunction, or of deep regret and repentance for a sin or wrong committed.’

A court will, however, be looking only for genuine remorse, and it is far from being a scientific exercise.

What does the Sentencing Council have to say?

The Sentencing Council commented on this as follows:

“This factor appears in all Sentencing Council guidelines and is one that sentencers are adept at assessing. Sentencers sitting in court on a daily basis are alive to the ease with which ‘sorry’ can be said but not meant. Evidence obtained during the course of interviews with judges (during the consultation process) confirmed the way in which judges carry out this assessment; often the judges used phrases in conversation with us such as ‘genuinely remorseful’, ‘genuine remorse’ and ‘true remorse’. This confirms the Council’s view that the consideration of remorse is nuanced, and that all the circumstances of the case will be considered by the sentencing in deciding whether any expressed remorse is in fact genuine.”

Not just credit for your guilty plea

In a recent lecture, a High Court Judge offered up these examples to illustrate genuine remorse:

• Deliberate withdrawal from an on-going criminal enterprise.

• Removing oneself from criminal associates or the sources of temptation.

• Behaviour immediately after the offence such as obtaining medical aid.

• Voluntary surrender and confession to the police.

• Efforts to reform by way of, e.g. drug-rehabilitation or alcohol withdrawal programmes.

• Return to education.

• Assistance to the authorities in combating crime.

• Voluntary restitution, payment of compensation without order from the court or restoring damaged property.

Less objective examples (but commonly seen) include:

• Expressions of remorse in police interviews after arrest.

• The impression of genuine remorse given to a probation officer, psychiatrist or psychologist when being interviewed for the purpose of preparing a report for the court before sentencing.

• Letters of apology written by offenders to victims or the court

How can we assist? Contact a criminal defence lawyer now.

It is our job when representing clients to ensure that the best case is put forward.  You will want this to go beyond the usual mitigation offered by the credit for your guilty plea.  This should involve other aspects of your character that might shine a light on your true self.

People make mistakes, sometimes serious ones, but rarely does that alone define the real person.  We believe that carefully presented mitigation makes a real difference to the outcome of criminal cases.

We are experienced in approaching family, friends, employers and other community figures for reference letters on your behalf.  The information that we request will make sure we build on the credit for your guilty plea because of this experience.

credit for your guilty plea
Our offices across the East Midlands

Please contact your nearest office here or alternatively use the contact form below.

Contact

News

Chesterfield Magistrates’ Court Trial Win

chesterfield criminal solicitor
Chesterfield Solicitor David Gittins

Chesterfield Crime solicitor David Gittins was recently instructed  by a client who faced an allegation of assault in a domestic setting.  The case was heard before Chesterfield Magistrates’ Court.

The case called for thorough and diligent preparation.  This included the development of a complex legal argument at a very late stage.  The argument resulted in the prosecution choosing not to pursue the case further.  David’s client had the benefit of a not guilty verdict.

We had represented our client during the investigation stage and David conducted the case before the Magistrates’ Court.

The Allegation

In November 2016 the David’s client was at his home address with his then partner.  An argument began which lasted several hours began. During the argument our client was said to have headbutted the complainant on 3 occasions and tried to bite her to the neck.

David’s client left the address and the police were called immediately by the complainant.  She had a visible injury to her head.

Full Account in Interview

When spoken to by the police, our client accepted that he had been present but had a different version of events.  He said that upon telling his partner during the argument that he was going to leave the property and see a friend the complainant attacked him.  She pushed her head into his, and our client had to push her away so he could leave.

chesterfield crime solicitor
Chesterfield Police Station Representative Rob Lowe

He was again prevented from leaving by being pulled backwards.  Our client again pushed her away fearing a further attack. He said he acted in reasonable self defence and he was in fact the victim.

This account was given in police interview when he was represented by accredited police station representative Rob Lowe.

The Trial

There were no other witnesses to the incident, so David set out to locate information gathered during the police investigation that would strengthen his client’s case.

David obtained a copy of the photograph taken of his client on arrest.  This and the custody record showed that he had no markings to his face supporting the idea that he had headbutted his partner.

Bad Character Evidence

Additionally, David attempted to secure information relating to an earlier incident from August 2016 when his client had called the police alleging that he had been assaulted.  Secondly David wrote to the CPS asking for information about an incident from August 2016 when the Defendant had called the Police alleging that the complainant in this matter had assaulted him.  This might support his client’s account in this case.

This information arrived very late.  This meant that David had to immediately draft an application for his bad character evidence to go before the trial court.  Although the prosecution responded, the response was supplied late and did not contain all of the information that it should.  The hearing was adjourned to the morning of the trial.

The additional information served was previous court decisions.  In fact, they did not help the prosecution.  David addressed the court on the application and this case law.  The court ruled in his client’s favour.  As a result, David was able to ask the complainant about this earlier incident.

Perhaps knowing that David’s client was in the right, the complainant did not attend court for the trial at Chesterfield Magistrates’ Court.  Although the prosecution could have applied to adjourn the case, the work that David had done persuaded them not make the application.  No evidence was offered and he was found not guilty.

Client Feedback

David’s client was very pleased, with this outcome, and after the hearing took the time to send David an email thanking him “for everything and the support you’ve provided in the case.”

Funding

David’s client did not have the benefit of legal aid for his case before Chesterfield Magistrates’ Court.  This was because his income was too high.  He therefore instructed David on a private basis. David gave a realistic and affordable quote from the outset with the Client being kept informed throughout by email, phone and office appointments.

At the conclusion of the David was successful in securing a Defendant’s Costs Order meaning that David’s bill would be paid out of Central Funds by the government and cost the Defendant nothing.

Contact David Gittins for Chesterfield Magistrates’ Court

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