Tag Archives: legal aid

News

Free Police Station Advice Leads to Restorative Justice Outcome

free police station advice newark crime solicitor
Nottingham and Newark Crime Solicitor Lauren Manuel

Nottingham and Newark crime solicitor Lauren Manuel recently gave free police station advice to a client at Newark police station.  She showed that just because a person may have committed an offence it doesn’t mean that they should be prosecuted at court.

The client had been contacted by the police to voluntarily attend the police station.  The police wanted to speak to her about an allegation of assault.  This was said to have taken place at a seaside amusement park.  The person said to be assaulted was a security guard.

The Allegation

The boyfriend of our client had been causing trouble at the park.  Security staff were trying to throw him out because he was drunk and behaving in a disorderly manner.  Whilst they struggled with him, Lauren’s client rang the police to complain about the way the staff were treating her boyfriend.  It was claimed that she hit one of the security staff on the head with her phone.  As a result of the attack the security guard received an inch long cut to his head.  He needed hospital treatment.

Free Police Station Advice

When the police tell a suspect that they want to speak to them voluntarily this is likely to create the wrong impression.  The conversation is still a police interview.  It will be an interview under caution.  It is likely to be recorded.  The information that the police gain in interview can be used against a suspect in court.

Lauren’s client realised that she was in a potentially serious situation.  She contacted Lauren to tell her about the interview and make arrangements for her to attend with her.  Lauren would be able to give her advice and protect her interests during interview. Further, because this was an interview by the police under caution the advice and representation would be free of charge.

When Lauren attended for the interview, it was clear that the evidence against the client was strong.  The police had CCTV evidence so she could be clearly identified.   They had also traced the call to the police as coming from a mobile phone registered to her.

The nature of the interview meant that any charge would be Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm.  If convicted at court she could well have faced a custodial sentence.

Restorative Justice Negotiated

Lauren’s client was a single mother with two small children so was obviously very scared at facing the prospect of a prison sentence.  She admitted hitting the security guard although she had not intended to cause him such a serious injury.  She was extremely sorry for what she had done, and wanted to apologise to the victim.

As a result, Lauren advised the client to give her account to the police in interview.  It would be an opportunity to offer an apology and put forward her genuine remorse.

Lauren was then able to make representations to the police that the matter be considered for a restorative justice disposal.  These representations were successful so the prosecution was avoided. The matter was dealt with by her client writing a letter of apology to the victim.

Contact a Newark Criminal Solicitor

This case highlights the importance of instructing a solicitor in a case from the outset.  It remains important even where you may have committed an offence.  We can help you to secure the best possible outcome for you in the circumstances.  We are contracted with the government to provide free police station advice.

Lauren splits her time between our Nottingham and Newark offices. If you are due to be interviewed by the police or have a case before court then please contact her on 0115 9599550 or 01636 614013.  To send a message to her directly email her here.

Uncategorized

Court Appointment and Litigators’ Fee Consultation Response

Litigator’s Graduated Fees Scheme and Court Appointees Consultation Papers

litigators' fee consultationThe litigators’ fee consultation ends on 24 March 2017. The government promised a full review of the way the litigator fee is paid. Instead it simply proposes a cut to that and the fees available for court appointed cross examination.

Respond to the Litigators’ Fee Consultation

Our response is here below, but if you wish to add your own then please follow this link,

Question 1

Do you agree with the proposed reduction of the threshold of PPE to 6.000?  Please give reasons.

It is premature to take such a step without the promised review of how criminal litigators are paid.  At this stage, without further review, this is simply a dramatic fee cut, albeit in a small number of cases.  A simple fee cut cannot be properly described as an ‘update’ to ‘the way we pay criminal litigators’.

Bearing in mind the fragile nature of the supplier base, this step should not be looked at in isolation.  The profession currently awaits an announcement for what the rates of pay will be under the new 1 April criminal legal aid contracts.  The following still appear to be undecided:

  • Will there be a reinstatement of the suspended 8.75% cut?
  • Will firms who have invested in in-house advocacy suffer the dramatic cuts predicted under the AGFS reform proposals?
  • What will be the effect of the promised LGFS review in terms of fee levels?

The Ministry of Justice is already in possession of research that demonstrates the likely effect of further fee cuts that will render the provision of legal aid advice and representation economically unsustainable.

At this stage, it is hard to see how these proposals ‘reduce bureaucracy’ or remove ‘unnecessary burdens’ on litigators.  It simply removes money for cases that need preparation by ‘expert litigators’ as acknowledged by the Ministry, and therefore the means to pay these experts a level of pay commensurate with their expertise.  Indeed, the proposal to require claims for ‘special preparation’ in a higher proportion of cases imposes bureaucracy and burdens on both the litigator, firms and the Legal Aid Agency or Criminal Cases Unit.

Litigator’s fees are properly based on the amount of pages of evidence served by the prosecution.  The amount of PPE is a useful proxy for how long a case will take to read.  It cannot be the Ministry’s position that the PPE should not be read – in the discharge of expert professional advice and representation it must be.

In serving the PPE, the Crown Prosecution Service must be sure that it is relevant and admissible.  If not, it would fall within Unused Material.  There is, of course, no payment due to litigators for considering such material.  In the larger cases there will be more of this material, and again the PPE proxy factors in that consideration and is a fair indication of how much additional material will have to be considered.

It would appear that the position of the Ministry is that more material is now being served than was being served when the scheme was designed.  If the material is not relevant, it should not be served, and would not be remunerated.  That is an issue for the Crown to address with the Prosecution.  It is likely to be seen as something of a blessing if the CPS could show restraint in what was served, rather than adopt the current position where many pages are served in electronic form at the last minute, with no hint of relevancy until the pages are considered by the litigator.

More restraint from the Crown would result in reduced LGFS payments and the more streamlined justice system that the Ministry wishes.  In the meantime, litigators should not be financially penalised.  The current system is closer to the aim of reflecting fair payment for work reasonably done (ie. reading the case and advising accordingly) that the proposed limit of 6000 pages.

A litigator will always ‘need’ to read the papers served.  Napper has not contributed to the Crown decision to serve more papers.  Over the years the various Statutory Instruments began to include electronically served evidence in the definition of PPE to reflect changing technology.  The effect of that was always going to be an increase in LGFS payments.

Napper simply reflected the current technological developments that permit the creation of pages of evidence that have never been on paper – presumably just the sort of development that the Ministry would embrace.  It is disingenuous to suggest that pre-Napper there was a limit of pages claimed – these proposals do not return the situation to pre-Napper costs.  As a result, the Ministry should consider whether the objection is to electronic statements or amount of PPE served by the Crown.  Once considered, the Ministry can simply confirm this is a fee cut that fails to recognise the current realities of service of PPE.

All evidence is now served electronically on the Crown Court Digital Case System.

The Ministry is in error in suggesting that, for example, phone evidence is quicker and easier to read than other evidence.  The ‘search function’ may identify any particular number, but it will not permit a detailed analysis of patterns in calls, combinations of calls or call duration that might be relevant in a complex conspiracy.  It will not interpret text messages that contain slang or abbreviations.  It will not permit the preparation of an argument that will undermine a prosecution assertion.  Once more, this would appear to be a consultation put forward that has no interest in exploring the realities of preparing a complex criminal case.

We note that, at least in part, the decision to cut fees is based on ’anecdotal evidence’ from case workers.  We would suggest that this is not a proper base for drastic fee cuts.  It is not possible to draw any conclusion as to a fall in Special Preparation claims – it may be likely that firms are simply defeated by the unnecessary burden of bureaucracy that this imposes so do not bother.  The Ministry will know, anecdotally, that firms often undertake work for clients where in the event no claim for payment is possible due to delays in processing legal aid, so such an approach would not be a surprise.

The consultation supplies figures in page 6 relating to the increase in the number of such ‘large’ cases.  Again, the consultation fails to acknowledge that the decision to serve PPE is a matter for the prosecution, not the litigator.  The plan will not provide any incentive on the prosecution to properly review papers served.  Instead, it provides a perverse incentive to overload the defence with a large volume of material of borderline relevance, knowing that the litigator will struggle to have a properly staffed office to read it.  The prosecution choose whether to make these cases ‘PPE heavy’.

Fixed fees have always been ‘sold’ to the profession on the basis that there will be ‘swings and roundabouts’.  This is understood to mean that while there will be cases that will not be economically viable to undertake, this will be made up for by other cases that carry the ‘profit’ that permits a firm to continue to be viable.  Unfortunately, this would appear be another example of the Ministry seeking to remove the profitable cases and leaving the profession with those that are not economically viable.  This should be looked at in the context of the evidence the Ministry holds and the threat to financial viability set out at the start of this response.

Question 2

If not, do you propose a different threshold or other method of addressing the issue?  Please give reasons.

No.

Leave it as it is until you undertake the full review which should be carried out as soon as possible.

Question 3

Do you agree with the proposed capping of court appointees’ costs at legal aid rates?  Please give reasons.

No.

It seems likely that the bulk of defendant’s where there is a court appointed solicitor involved will have had legal aid refused.  Experience tells us that will be a small minority who choose not to seek representation, this will not be a significant number.

As a result, while firms would represent clients for legal aid fees were legal aid available, the bulk of these client would only be represented at private rates.  The reason why they are not represented is because they cannot afford private fees.

As a result the suggestion is objectionable for this reason – why should firms accept what is a private instruction by the court at legal aid rates, and not private rates?  The rates are higher because they reflect private fee levels which are many times higher than legal aid rates.  The Ministry will no doubt note that from the fees charged by firms it chooses to instruct.

This proposal (again) ignores the sensitive nature of the cases; the care needed in cross examination; that responsibility being discharged where a litigant in person will have actually prepared the case (or not); and the need of the courts to ensure that there is representation to permit these trials to proceed.

The proposal is likely to have the result that fewer advocates undertake the work, irrespective of the contractual clause – there will always be a good reason not to undertake such work at a loss – and there will be a knock on effect for the courts and vulnerable witnesses.

Once more, the suggested reform fails to take into account what is required of the advocate involved. For example, in a rural area the advocate might be some distance from the court centre.  He might have reserved a full day to cross examine three witnesses following a court appointment.  On arriving at court, the defendant (not his client) chooses to plead guilty when the witnesses attend.  This is out of the advocate’s control.  He will be paid 1 ½ hours travel at c.£25 per hour, some waiting, and for a brief attendance.  The advocate is unable to undertake further work for the rest of the day, and that day will be undertaken at a financial loss.  The current fees will make that loss less likely, and more enthusiasm will be found in experienced advocates who can undertake the work.

An alternative would be to bring the scheme within the ‘swings and roundabouts’ of the legal aid system proper by either:

  • Removing the means test for cases identified as needing a ‘court appointment’ so that full representation can be provided. This doesn’t deal with defendants who choose not to have representation so may not be attractive.
  • Alternatively, or in addition, pay tiered fees identical to those paid for trials under legal aid fees ie. category 2 fees, the level dependent upon work undertaken and submitted on CRM6.

In such cases they will be remunerated as if the client had received legal aid, is likely to enhance client choice and may be unarguable in terms of mechanism for payment.

Question 4

Do you have any comments on the Equalities Statement published alongside this consultation and/or any further data about protected characteristics we should consider?

Having considered the Impact Assessments we make the following points:

  • We do not accept that the disparity in rates for court appointments and legal aid rates is ‘unfair’. It reflects private fee levels for a private appointment.
  • As a result, this is not an historic anomaly but reflects the fact that court appointments are not ‘legal aid’ for a client, but a private instruction to protect a witness.
  • The assessment fails to note that the witnesses themselves are likely to be affected stakeholders where trials cannot proceed due to a lack of advocate.
  • The principal uncertainty, not properly identified, must be whether anyone will provide cross-examination at the proposed rates.
  • The equalities assessment fails to acknowledge the witnesses as being a potentially affected class of person. It might be a generalisation, but it would seem correct to say that the likelihood is that the witness requiring protection will be female in many domestic violence cases.  As a result, anything likely to impact on witnesses in terms of whether a trial is effective and the expertise of those cross-examining at much reduced fees will impact more on women.  Of course, the Ministry will hold these figures so it is surprising that they weren’t mention.
  • By definition, those who need representation as they are not fit to plead are likely to have the most severe mental health difficulties. I am not sure that their interests have been adequately considered.
  • It is perhaps unbelievable that the effect on witnesses of these proposals is not mentioned, bearing in mind in relation to court appointments the whole reason is to protect them.
  • All of the assessments are predicated on the believe that advocates will continue to accept instructions as before. They won’t.  Factor that in look again at the impacts to the courts, defendants and witnesses.

Any risks from either proposal can be mitigated by leaving things as they are.

News

Police assault client not guilty when mobile phone footage recovered

police assault trial nottingham criminal solicitor
Nottingham crime solicitor Graham Heathcote

Notttingham crime solicitor Graham Heathcote recently represented two clients from the Nottingham Polish community who were charged with similar allegations of disorderly conduct, and one with two allegations of police assault.

Although both were convicted of the public order offence, there were not guilty verdicts for the police assault allegations.

Neither client had been in trouble with the police before.  They decided, along with others, to stage an impromptu, unlicensed, boxing match in the street in the Forest Fields area of Nottingham.  Unfortunately it all gets out of hand to the extent that a member of the public calls the police.

Three police cars attended the incident.  One of the group, represented by another firm of solicitors, was arrested.  The police wanted to arrest Graham’s client.  The decision to arrest was based on the description of one of those involved.  This was given by the eye-witness who called the police.

The police witnesses alleged that Graham’s client backed off and  gestured as if he wanted to fight the police.  It was then alleged that our client grabbed a female officer in a headlock, taking her to the ground.  On the way to the floor it was claimed that he kicked a second officer.

The third Polish male was arrested for the public order offence based on the witness account, and he was initially represented by Nick Walsh of VHS Fletchers.

Graham’s client pleaded not guilty to all of his charges.  Nick’s client pleaded not guilty to the public order offence.  Unfortunately, legal aid was refused for Nick’s client despite his good character and the challenge to police evidence.  This is because the charge did not carry a prison sentence.

Legal aid was also initially refused for Graham’s client on the basis of his financial means.  Graham pursued a hardship application with the Legal Aid Agency and legal aid was eventually granted to ensure his free representation before the court.

Pro Bono Representation

Unfortunately, the hardship application was not decided until two days before the trial.  As a result, little time was left for preparation.  Graham felt able, however, to represent the second client without legal aid on a pro-bono, or free, basis to ensure that he had a fair trial.  As a result, this client did not have to pay for his representation.

 Decisive evidence from cameras

CCTV footage was obtained from the street.  Unfortunately the incident was in the distance.  It was grainy and not helped by poor lighting.  It did not appear to show a great deal of the incident.

Graham took the time to slow the footage down and was able to blow up the footage.  If watched frame by frame the camera captured the police jumping on Graham’s client.  They then took him to the floor before the incident disappeared from view behind a police car.

This footage alone cast doubt on the truth of the police allegation that Graham’s client was the aggressor and put an officer in a headlock.  He would also have seemed to be too far away from other officers to kick any of them.

Graham’s second client had continued to film the incident on his mobile phone once it had gone out of view of the street CCTV.  Although the police denied it, one of them was seen on the CCTV taking our client’s phone off him and then returning it.  Our client maintained the officer deleted the footage.

Graphic footage retrieved from mobile phone

police assault not guilty nottingham defence lawyer
Nottingham Magistrates’ Court

The footage was able to be retrieved from the phone despite the police attempts to delete it.  It showed the confiscating officer slamming our client’s head on the pavement.  The footage was so graphic that the court usher was heard to gasp when it was played.

Of course, in part the prosecution case was dependent upon the truthfulness of this officer.  This was the same officer who denied the confiscation of the phone and assaulting the client.  This evidence was proved to be untrue.

The only type of camera footage missing was police BodyCam footage.  Although six police officers in total attended and body cameras are now issued as standard to all front line officers apparently not a single officer was wearing one.

Not guilty of police assault

Although both clients were convicted of the disorderly conduct mater relating to their earlier behaviour, the client charged with police assault was found not guilty of both offences.

Contact a criminal solicitor in Nottingham

With the right representation (in this case free for one client) and preparation (even at short notice) police evidence can be successfully challenged.  Here, if convicted, one of our clients was likely to be receive a prison sentence.

Choosing the right criminal lawyer who will properly prepare and present your can make the difference between guilty or not guilty verdicts.

If you are being investigated by the police or face court proceedings then Nottingham criminal defence lawyer Graham Heathcote can be contacted on 0115 9599550 or email him here.

News

Fixed Fee Representation at Nottingham Magistrates’ Court

nottingham criminal solicitor
Nottingham crime solicitor Martin Hadley

Nottingham criminal solicitor Martin Hadley recently represented a client who was jointly charged with allegations of production of cannabis and possessing it with intent to supply before Nottingham Magistrates’ Court.

Despite a relevant history of previous offences and very strong evidence, he was able to persuade the prosecution to accept a lesser charge.  As a result, committal to the Crown Court for sentence and a likely prison sentence was avoided.  Further, he represented her under an affordable fixed fee agreement.

Production of Cannabis

The police visited the address of her and her partner, the co-accused.  When the address is searched, the police discover significant amounts of cannabis in the kitchen cupboards.  There also cannabis growing in the loft.

In interview Martin’s client had accepted that she knew about the cannabis grow, but denied that she had been involved with the actual production of the cannabis.  In effect, she was accepting that she had permitted her premises to be used by her partner for cultivation of cannabis.

fixed fee criminal defence solicitor
Nottingham Magistrates’ Court

Although representations were made at an early stage that this would be an appropriate charge, the prosecution did not accept the plea that was offered.  This was perhaps unsurprising as Martin’s client had two previous convictions for production of cannabis, one of which had resulted in confiscation proceedings.  She had also failed to comply with a community order previously imposed.

As a result, Martin had advised her to plead not guilty to production of cannabis and the matter was adjourned for trial.

Plea to an alternative charge

Martin attended trial to represent his client. He renewed the representations to the prosecutor in court and this time they were received more favourably.  His client was able to plead guilty to the alternative charge.

 

Bearing in mind her record, Martin was unable to provide any guarantees that she would escape a prison sentence.  His experience and judgement, however, led him to believe that the lesser charge in combination with her personal mitigation would allow her to keep her liberty.

After hearing all about the case and listening to Martin’s expert mitigation aimed at avoiding custody, the Magistrates’ felt able to impose a Community Order.  The only elements were residence combined with an 8 week electronically monitored curfew.

Fixed Fee Funding

Martin’s client was not entitled to legal aid.  Her income was just outside the entitlement threshold.  As an experienced criminal defence lawyer, Martin was able to estimate how much preparation would be involved in the preparation and presentation of the case and agree affordable fixed fee representation.

Contact a Nottingham Criminal Defence Lawyer

 

If you are to be interviewed by the police or face court proceedings then please contact Martin Hadley on 0115 9599550 or email him here. He will advise you as to how best to fund your case, whether that be through legal aid, a fixed fee or hourly rate.

 

News

Chesterfield Criminal Defence Solicitor Secures Suspended Sentence

chesterfield criminal defence solicitor
Chesterfield Crime Solicitor Serena Simpson

Chesterfield criminal defence solicitor Serena Simpson recently defended a client before Chesterfield Magistrates Court.  The charges were allegations of domestic violence directed to a former partner.

The offences included an allegation of assault occasioning actual bodily harm (ABH) where she had stabbed the victim to the arm and chest with a knife. In addition it was alleged that Serena’s client had followed the male and further assaulted him by punching him to the face.

Serena first met her client when she had been refused bail by the police.  She was detained in the cells to be put before the court for a remand to prison custody.

On meeting the client, Serena immediately realised that she was a vulnerable adult herself.  She provided a history of domestic violence directed against her by the complainant in this case.

Offence on Bail

Serena’s client admitted that due to this prolonged abuse she had picked up a knife and stabbed her violent partner.  She had then turned herself in to the police.  She accepted that while on police bail she had seen the victim.  Although he had followed her, she had slapped him to the face.  There was a further minor public order offence that was denied.

The Prosecution suggested an alternative version in respect of the second allegation.  It was claimed that Serena’s client had followed the victim and punched him rather than slapped him.

Newton Hearing Listed

chesterfield criminal defence solicitor
Chesterfield Magistrates’ Court

Serena’s client pleaded guilty to both assaults.  As she disputed the extent of the allegations she put forward her account in a written ‘basis of plea’.  Her account was not accepted by the prosecution.  As the Court felt it would make a real difference to sentence the case was listed for a hearing to decide whether our client’s version of events was correct. This is a trial of issue or a ‘Newton Hearing’.

Serena successfully argued for bail for her client.  She then undertook the preparation for the contested hearing.  It became clear as the hearing the ex-partner did not want to attend court and give evidence.

Serena was keen to bring the case to an end as soon as possible as from meeting with her client it was clear that the ordeal of court proceedings was having an adverse effect on her.

Active Case Management

The case was listed for a case progression hearing at Serena’s request to ascertain whether the hearing was going to be effective in due course.  The prosecution was unable to make a decision until a week before the trial when it confirmed that a hearing was no longer sought and Serena’s client could be sentenced on her version of events.  Further, the public order allegation was dropped.

The case was not yet over, however.  Serena had to prepare for a difficult sentencing hearing as whatever the background her client had still admitted stabbing her ex-partner.

Starting Point of 18 Months?

Sentencing guidelines govern an allegation of ABH.  The prosecution argued that this case fell into the most serious band, and the starting point for any sentence ought to be 18 months imprisonment within a range of 1 to 3 years. Her case was likely to be committed to the Crown Court for sentence even with discount for plea.

Suspended Sentence

Serena provided mitigation to the court outlining the history of the relationship, including the violence directed at her client, and other elements of personal mitigation.  Serena persuaded the District Judge that the case did not fall into the top level of seriousness.  As a result, Serena’s client was able to receive a sentence of 16 weeks suspended for 2 years with a rehabilitation element.

The Judge made it clear that Serena’s mitigation had persuaded him to take this unusual course of action in a case involving knife crime.

Serena’s client was understandably delighted.

Legal Aid Funding

Our client had the benefit of legal aid.  This allowed her to instruct Chesterfield criminal defence solicitor Serena Simpson.  This advice and representation was free of charge to her.  Further information about funding can be found here.

Contact a Chesterfield Criminal Defence Solicitor

If you are investigated by the police or are at court you may wish to instruct Chesterfield criminal defence solicitors VHS Fletchers. Please telephone us at our Chesterfield office 01246 283000 or use the contact form below.

Contact

News

Parole Granted at First Request

Irene Tolley, Head of Prison Law Department, recently represented a client who wished to apply for parole.  He was serving a sentence made up as follows:

  • Attempt murder police office with firearm – 15 year sentence
  • Robbery – 7 years consecutive
  • Robbery – 7 years concurrent

This total sentence of twenty two years meant that Irene’s client remained a Category A prisoner throughout his sentence and had therefore been detained for thirteen years at high security establishments.

prison law solicitors vhs fletchers paroleIrene’s first involvement in his case was to make representations to his Category A status.  Her submissions in relation to this were immediately successful and he was downgraded to Category B in July.

His first parole hearing was heard a less than a month later.  Irene submitted an application for release on her client’s behalf.  Again, these representations were successful and Irene’s client has his release directed in October.

Such a decision was almost unprecedented.  Irene’s client had not spent any time in lower security prisons and had not completed any releases on temporary licence which would have helped assess suitability for release.

Client Doing Very Well

Irene has had contact with one of the Parole Board members since the decision was made.  Irene is pleased to be able to report that her client is doing very well.  He is in regular touch to update her on what he is up to – he has a job, works with both a High Court Judge and a professor in criminology at Cambridge, and travels the country giving presentations about his experiences.

Contact Irene about Parole

prison law parole hearings
Our Prison Law Services

If you or a family member need advice about parole or any other prison law matter then please contact Irene Tolley by telephone on 0115 9599550 or email her here.

She will be able to advise you as to whether legal aid funding remains available or whether you will need to take advantage of our affordable fixed fees.

 

News

Local Criminal Legal Aid Advice

VHS Fletchers Nottingham

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.

criminal legal aid Newark
VHS Fletchers Newark
derby criminal legal aid
VHS 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.

Details of the lawyers that you will meet at each office can be found here.

chesterfield criminal legal aid
VHS Fletchers Chesterfield office

Contact Us to Discuss Criminal Legal Aid

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.

You can read more about the different legal aid schemes here.

We can give you further advice at your local office.

Details of our offices can be found here.

east midlands criminal legal aid

Alternatively you can use the contact form below.

Contact

News

Legal Aid in the Crown Court

Legal Aid is available for defending Crown Court proceedings.  It will always be granted on the merits of the case, but is subject to a means test.  The legal aid certificate can be granted with or without a contribution from your monthly income.

Even if you do not have to pay an income contribution you might have sufficient capital to mean that money is collected from that capital at the conclusion of the case.  Although the monthly income level is set reasonably high, it can be that you will not qualify at all for Crown Court Legal Aid.

Bearing in mind the stress to you that defending proceedings will involve, we recognise that it is important that your defence is affordable.  As a result we will provide you with all of the alternatives available to you in the funding of your case.

An application for legal aid will have several benefits:

  • if you win your case any contributions you make will be returned to you
  • if you are not entitled to legal aid and win your case then you will be able to apply for a proportion of your fees to be repaid from central funds
  • it is likely to make your representation by litigator and advocate more affordable, particularly if the case involves the instruction of expert witnesses

The first step will be to submit an application for legal aid, having taken all of the information necessary for the legal aid means test to be undertaken.  Documentary evidence in support of your income and expenditure will need to be submitted to the Legal Aid Agency (LAA) in due course, but the initial decision will be made upon the basis of the fully completed form.

The initial response from the LAA will indicate whether or not a contribution will be required from your income.  Unfortunately, there will be no indication as to the level of any capital contribution.  This will be calculated at the conclusion of your case if you plead or are found guilty.

When you receive notification of any income contribution it might be that it may appear difficult to afford.  This is because the expenditure that is offset against your income is very limited.  At this stage we will help you decide whether you ought to accept the offer of legal aid.

We will be able to calculate the likely cost of the preparation and the advocacy involved in your case and in many cases will be able to undertake the work on a private basis, but with fees limited to the amount that we would recover from the Legal Aid Agency.

This might be particularly attractive where you know that you will be pleading guilty so will not be entitled to recover costs, your monthly contribution is high and the case is likely to take several months to conclude.

It might be less helpful in a denied matter involving a substantial amount of work and a lengthy trial.

We will take the time to discuss all of your options with you to allow you to make the right decision as to how best to fund your case.  If you have a case you wish to discuss then please contact your nearest office or email us here.

vhs fletchers legal aid logo

News

Mansfield Solicitors Receive Praise

Our Mansfield solicitors received individual items of positive feedback from clients they have represented within the last week.

Melanie Hoffman assisted a client at trial who was charged with Assault Occasioning Actual bodily harm.  The allegation arose out of a long-standing neighbour dispute, and was said to have been a prolonged assault resulting in a fracture.

The trial involved cross-examination of three prosecution witnesses, all of whom gave evidence that Mel’s client had assaulted the complainant in various ways.  Careful preparation meant that Mel was able to highlight all of the inconsistencies between these  witnesses.  Mel was also able to highlight to the Magistrates and the prosecutor that the injuries were not supportive of a charge of causing Actual Bodily Harm.

As a result, although the client was found guilty of an allegation of common assault, he was found not guilty of the more serious charge.  Despite having had a trial, Melanie put forward mitigation that allowed the Magistrates to deal with her client by way of a financial penalty only.

Her client was very pleased as he provided a prompt and full testimonial , stating that Mel was ‘outstanding in Court today’.  He went on to say that of other Mansfield solicitors she was ‘the best solicitor I have ever come across’, maintaining that she was ‘tremendous’, fighting for him in court and secured ‘the best result’.

Separately, solicitor Tim Haines represented a client for a drink drive charge.  She was 3 1/2 times the legal limit to drive, and her driving resulted in a road traffic accident with a stationary car, leading to her own car being written off. Tim’s client had never appeared in court before.

Guidance for sentence in such cases is now easy to find.  The sentencing guidelines can be found here.  Tim’s client had researched the position and was understandably worried about the likelihood of a prison sentence.

Tim spent the time with the client that was needed to ensure she provided him with all of the mitigation relevant to her case.  It became clear that she was particularly vulnerable, and the offence reflected a culmination of various malign factors in her life.

Tim was able to ensure that the Magistrates fully understood the careful mitigation he put forward, and how if affected culpability and the likelihood of re-offending.  In the event, rather than receive a starting point sentence of 12 weeks’ custody, the court dealt with Tim’s client by way of a community order with a rehabilitation element only.  The inevitable disqualification could be reduced if the client undertook the relevant course.

Another prompt testimonial reflects well on Tim’s people skills as well as his advocacy – ‘I wanted to thank you for your support at court this morning. I realise you spend a lot of time in that environment but for me it was a first and last. You helped me through an extremely nerve-racking situation with professionalism and compassion and I wouldn’t hesitate to recommend you to any other person I know should they find themselves in a similar situation. Thank you again.’

Neither client was  financially eligible for Magistrates’ Court legal aid.  Both were able, however,  to afford to be represented by our Mansfield solicitors who made a difference to their cases by way of an agreed and affordable fixed fee.

Options for funding your case can be found here.

If you wish advice and representation for any criminal matter please contact your nearest office.  Mel can be contacted by email here and Tim can be contacted here.

VHS Fletchers Mansfield Office

News

CPS Evidence Investigated

Crown Prosecution Service – CPS – allegations involving charges where, upon conviction, a client is expected to receive a prison sentence of more than six months are regularly allocated to the Crown Court to be dealt with.  Bearing in mind the pressures on the court system this can lead to a long delay between charge and trial, on top of any delay between arrest and first appearance at the Magistrates’ Court.

We recognise that these delays can be a worry to all of our clients, but we try to mitigate this by showing that we are using this time to effectively prepare the defence case.  Our firm has a team of specialist Crown Court Litigators who deal with these serious cases.

Early preparation will always involve taking a client’s full instructions on the evidence.  It may involve taking statements from additional witnesses, seeking character evidence or pursuing expert reports.

A recent case shows how it may be unwise to take prosecution expert evidence at face value, particularly when it is in the form of medical ‘evidence’ in an abbreviated prosecution file.

Ruth Campbell,  a senior Crown Court litigator based in our Chesterfield Office, represented a client accused of assaulting his partner.   The allegation was one of s20 Offences Against the Person Act 1864, or grievous boldily harm.

The alleged victim claimed that she had suffered a broken arm as a result of an unlawful assault.  Ruth’s client maintained that he had only ever acted in self-defence.  Instead he maintained that he himself had been the victim of an attack by his partner.  He claimed that she had lunged at him with a knife and he had twisted her arm to protect himself.  He did not believe that  his actions could have caused her to suffer a broken arm.

As a result, and at an early stage, it was suggested to the prosecution that the injury was not consistent with the description of the incident as set out by the complainant.  This contention was set out in the client’s defence statement leading the Judge, when our client entered a not guilty plea, to request that the CPS serve additional medical evidence to clarify the position.

When these enquiries were concluded the additional evidence obtained demonstrated that the injury could not have been caused as alleged and showed that the complainant was not telling the truth.  As this was evidence obtained by the CPS, it was accepted that the prosecution had no option but to drop the charge and a formal not guilty verdict was entered.

Experience meant that Ruth was able to listen to the client’s instructions, consider the evidence and know that the injury did not appear to support the facts as set out by the complainant.  A potentially serious injury is not decisive evidence of a client’s guilt.

At VHS Fletchers your case will be dealt with by an appropriately qualified lawyer who will respect your instructions and prepare your case accordingly.

This client had the additional benefit of receiving legal aid which means that ultimately his case was free of charge to him.  We will always investigate the most cost effective way for you to fight your case.

If you have any criminal matter which you wish to discuss with one of our team please contact your nearest office.  If you wish to contact Ruth directly then telephone her on 01246 283000 or email her.

VHS Fletchers Chesterfield