In readiness for the opening of the new Chesterfield office we have been putting together new website profiles for the lawyers based there.
Accredited police station representative Rob Lowe has provided the detail of several examples of recent free police station advice that he has given. Each illustrate the advantages of seeking his free and independent legal advice before speaking to the police in an interview under caution.
Mansfield police station – domestic assault allegation
Rob attended Mansfield police station to represent a suspect who had been arrested for an allegation of an assault in a domestic setting. The officer in the case provided Rob with disclosure of the evidence in the case permitting him to take instructions from his client before interview.
The evidence provided failed to implicate Rob’s client in an offence. As a result, Rob formed the view that there was not a case for him to answer. He made immediate representations to the custody sergeant that his client should be released immediately without interview.
The sergeant agreed, and Rob’s client was released without charge, without the need for an interview.
It is perhaps hard to imagine that this outcome would have been secured without the benefit of Rob’s free police station advice and representation.
Liverpool police station – assault allegation
Rob travelled to represent his client at Liverpool police station. he had been arrested on suspicion of assault. He advised his client to answer questions and make a counter complaint.
This advice led to our client being released without charge. Instead, the initial complainant ended up being interviewed under caution by the police himself. This was as a result of the advice given and the representations that Rob made to the investigating officers.
Chesterfield police station – shop theft
Chesterfield police station
Part of Rob’s role in when representing a client at the police station is to negotiate with the police. In this case, his client was accepting guilt in relation to allegations of shop lifting.
The custody sergeant was concerned about a risk of re-offending and intended to keep our client in custody overnight to be placed before the Magistrates’ Court for a remand into custody the next day. After taking into account the representations that Rob made about bail, the custody sergeant reconsidered his initial view and agreed to grant bail.
Again, without representation, it would appear unlikely that this suspect would have been released, with nobody to negotiate on their behalf.
Chesterfield police station – drug investigation
Here, Rob was instructed by a client who had been arrested on suspicion of drugs offences. Rob considered it appropriate for his client to deny the offences for which he had been arrested. His client was, however, reluctant to submit to extensive questioning by the police.
As a result, Rob advised that an alternative to answering questions would be to submit a prepared statement in interview setting out his defence. He would then be able to make ‘no comment’ replies to any other questions put. This would be sufficient to remove the risk of an inference being drawn at any future trial.
Rob’s client was released to allow the police further time to investigate the offence and his defence.
Contact us for free police station advice
If you are unlucky enough to be interviewed by the police, whether while under arrest or as a volunteer, or in the police station or elsewhere, you are entitled to legal representation. As we have a legal aid contract then we can provide you with free police station advice.
Chesterfield accredited police station representative Rob Lowe
If you are arrested then make sure the police ask for VHS Fletchers to represent you. If you know that the police want to speak to you as a volunteer then contact us with the date and time and we will make sure that we are there on time to remove any delay.
Rob Lowe can be contacted at our new Chesterfield office at 5 Beetwell Street, 100 metres away from Chesterfield police station. Our new phone number is 01246 387999.
This was the response of VHS Fletchers to the consultation paper released by the Legal Aid Agency (LAA) following the notification on 25 October 2017 of the closure of Newark custody suite with effect from 6 November 2017. The suggestion was to merge the Newark duty solicitor scheme with the Mansfield scheme.
All Newark arrests from that date are taken to and processed at Mansfield Custody Suite. The residents of Newark had already lost one public resource, that being the ability of their police station to process prisoners. There was a very real risk that they would lose another – detainees receiving advice from solicitors local to Newark under the Newark duty solicitor scheme.
The consultation document invited responses to three alternative revisions to the Newark duty solicitor scheme and Mansfield scheme. Only one of those appeared to put first the needs of those from Newark who are arrested.
After the consultation document was published there were two important indications from the police that impacted upon the proposals:
Cases that were identified as Newark cases would continue to be charged and either bailed or held to appear at Nottingham Magistrates’ Court rather than Mansfield Magistrates’ Court.
The police would continue to contact the Newark Duty Solicitor Scheme in cases which are identified as “Newark arrests” and would ensure that the Duty Solicitor Call Centre (“DSCC”) was informed in all cases where the detainee was arrested for an offence committed in Newark.
Newark police station
It followed from these indications that Mansfield custody suite was able to and intended to identify cases that had historically been dealt with at Newark police station. As a result, they would be able to direct those who seek the advice of a duty solicitor to a firm local to Newark.
The proposed options for changes to the scheme could be summarised as follows:
That the Newark Police Station Duty Scheme was merged with the Mansfield Police Station Duty Scheme with effect from 1 January 2018 with members of an extended Mansfield scheme covering both Mansfield and Newark police stations.
That the Newark Police Station Scheme was retained as a separate scheme and Duty Solicitors on the Newark rota would be directed by the DSCC to attend at Mansfield police station.
Newark Police Station Scheme retained as a separate scheme and firms post 1 January 2018 could elect to join either the Mansfield police station duty rota or standalone Newark scheme (if retained under option 2)
The LAA indicated that they preferred option 1. The reason given was that options 2 and 3 were reliant upon the police being able to identify to the DSCC “Newark cases”. A more cynical view might be that the LAA and DSCC would have one less scheme to administer under option 1, resulting in an inevitable reduction in administration costs.
Fortunately, since the consultation document was published, the police set out their intention to continue to identify Newark cases at the point of arrest and charge.
As a result, there appeared to be no requirement for option 1 to be adopted unless there were ulterior motives on behalf of the LAA.
VHS Fletchers supported Option 2 for the following reasons:
This firm’s investment in Newark
When new legal aid contracts were to be awarded this firm chose to apply for a contract for a new Newark office. The closure of Newark custody suite was not anticipated.
Newark duty solicitor Ian Carter
The office is staffed with two crime solicitors local to Newark – Ian Carter and Barbara McDonnell. We have since recruited a further Newark based lawyer – Legal Executive Advocate Nikki Carlisle – signalling a clear indication to continue to develop our business there.
Of course, we are in business. The rationale behind the investment that we make in training and recruitment of duty solicitors is that they provide access to new work through the duty solicitor rotas. Option 3 supports those firms who, like us, have chosen to locate their offices in Newark in order to provide legal aid services to that particular community.
Newark deserves its own duty solicitor rota
Newark-on-Trent is the largest urban area within the Newark and Sherwood District. It has a population of just over 37 000 residents. Of the three firms in Newark that currently undertaking criminal Legal Aid work, only our firm has office both in Mansfield and Newark.
Should Option 1 have been adopted, Newark residents who are detained at Mansfield police station may very well be represented by a duty solicitor from a firm who only has an office in Mansfield. It is understandable that suspects will usually choose to have continuity of representation. This might be either whilst they remain on police bail, under investigation or following charge when the matter appears at court.
Prohibitive journey times
However, in seeking continuity, such clients would face a journey of 20 miles simply to see their solicitor to give instructions and take advice. By car that journey takes between 40 and 50 minutes. By public transport this time rises to 1 hour and 30 minutes for a single journey.
The same situation would of course have arisen in relation to residents of Mansfield who were represented by a duty solicitor who only had an office in Newark. It is true that many of those that require the services of criminal legal aid solicitors are vulnerable themselves and on a low income that would make such a journey very difficult.
It was our view that it was both unreasonable and unconscionable to expect those being investigated for criminal offences to have a return journey of three hours simply to see their solicitor. This stress and expense would be imposed on top of the emotional burden that the investigation of proceedings impose on any individual.
Local legal aid solicitors should be supported
Newark duty solicitor Barbara McDonnell
Option 2 supports those criminal legal aid firms who have chosen to locate their offices in Newark. This is in order to provide legal aid services to that community. It would mean that the arrangements within Option 2 could commence immediately following the closure of the Newark Custody Suite. Newark based firms would not have to suffer the inevitable financial hardship of not having access to Duty Solicitor work for a period of two months.
Such a decision might be seen as supportive of a legal aid provider base that it is acknowledged is financially fragile.
Perverse consequences of merging two duty schemes
The perverse consequences of Option 1 would have been to permit automatic access to Newark residents requesting the duty solicitor to firms solely based in Mansfield. Access to such Mansfield residents would have been granted to firms solely based in Newark.
Whilst some firms may have seen there to be a financial advantage in having a place on a merged duty scheme following the closure of Newark custody suite, this would have been to ignore the needs of local Newark residents. Financial advantage should never be allowed to outweigh the impact on those we represent and assist who are often ill-equipped to represent themselves.
On this basis, Options 2 and 3 would have been unattractive and unacceptable to clients where the duty solicitor may or may not have been based geographically convenient to them.
An increase in LAA costs?
Newark Legal Executive Advocate Nikki Carlisle
The LAA will have to budget for increased travel claims from Newark firms to Mansfield custody suite following the closure of Newark custody suite. An additional consequence might have been that the LAA had to fund more instances of advice and assistance in the police station.
It seemed likely that clients, once they discovered where their duty solicitor was based, would want to transfer to a local firm. Where the duty solicitor had been instructed a second fee may be properly claimable by the second local firm nearer to a suspects home address.
Clients to choose for themselves
Following the closure of Newark custody suite, if clients wish to choose a geographically distant firm then that must be a matter for them. To have a geographically distant firm inflicted upon them was a separate matter to be avoided where possible. The risk of a reduction in access to justice was apparent to all who considered the issue. The problem would be avoided by the adoption of Option 2.
Outcome of the Legal Aid Agency Consultation into the Newark Duty Solicitor scheme
The majority view of those who responded to the consultation was that the Newark Police Station Scheme be retained as a separate scheme. This is to be adopted by the Legal Aid Agency.
Duty solicitors on the Newark duty solicitor scheme will continue to be directed by the Duty Solicitor Call Centre (DSCC) to attend Mansfield Police Station upon the identification of a Newark detainee.
The police have confirmed that they will send out a further instruction to all the staff at Mansfield to make sure that they correctly identify with the DSCC suspects who fall under the Newark scheme. Although errors may occur, the police will actively monitor the position.
As a result, the Legal Aid Agency will issue a Newark rota for the period from January to March 2018. This will be subject to additional monitoring and review in late January or early February 2018 to consider if any changes are needed from April 2018 for the following six month rota.
Instruct a Newark crime solicitor
Despite the closure of Newark custody suite, the best way to ensure that you instruct a solicitor local to you if you are a Newark resident is to make sure you ask for VHS Fletchers if you are arrested and detained by the police.
If you know the police want to speak to you, contact us and we will be able to make the necessary arrangements for you to be interviewed.
Should you face proceedings at either the Magistrates’ or Crown Court then we will see you at our Newark office to take your instructions and give you expert advice.
This is the response of VHS Fletchers to the consultation paper released by the Legal Aid Agency (LAA) following the notification on 25 October 2017 of the closure of Newark custody suite with effect from 6 November 2017.
All Newark arrests from that date will be taken to and processed at Mansfield Custody Suite. The residents of Newark have already lost one public resource, that being the ability of the police station to process prisoners. There is a very real risk that they will lose another – detainees receiving advice from solicitors local to Newark.
The consultation document invites responses to three alternative revisions to the Newark and Mansfield Police Station Duty Solicitor Schemes. Only one of those appears to put the needs of those from Newark who are arrested first.
Since the consultation document was published there have been two important indications from the police which impact upon the proposals:
Cases that are identified as Newark cases will continue to be charged and either bailed or held to appear at Nottingham Magistrates’ Court rather than Mansfield Magistrates’ Court.
The police will continue to contact the Newark Duty Solicitor Scheme in cases which are identified as “Newark arrests” and will ensure that the Duty Solicitor Call Centre (“DSCC”) is informed in all cases where the detainee was arrested for an offence committed in Newark.
It follows from these indications that Mansfield custody suite is able to and intends to identify cases that have historically been dealt with at Newark police station. As a result, they should be able to direct those who seek the advice of a duty solicitor to a firm local to Newark.
The proposed options for changes to the scheme can be summarised as follows:
That the Newark Police Station Duty Scheme is merged with the Mansfield Police Station Duty Scheme with effect from 1 January 2018 with members of an extended Mansfield scheme covering both Mansfield and Newark police stations.
That the Newark Police Station Scheme is retained as a separate scheme and Duty Solicitors on the Newark rota will be directed by the DSCC to attend at Mansfield police station.
Newark Police Station Scheme retained as a separate scheme and firms post 1 January 2018 can elect to join either the Mansfield police station duty rota or standalone Newark scheme (if retained under option 2)
The LAA have helpfully indicated that they prefer option 1. The reason given is that options 2 and 3 are reliant upon the police being able to identify to the DSCC “Newark cases”. A more cynical view might be that the LAA and DSCC would have one less scheme to administer under option 1, resulting in an inevitable reduction in administration costs.
Fortunately, since the consultation document was published, the police have set out their intention to continue to identify Newark cases at the point of arrest and charge.
As a result, there appears to be no requirement for option 1 to be adopted unless there are ulterior motives on behalf of the LAA.
VHS Fletchers supports Option 2 for the following reasons:
This firm’s investment in Newark
Newark crime solicitor Ian Carter
When new legal aid contracts were to be awarded this firm chose to apply for a contract for a new Newark office. The closure of Newark custody suite was not anticipated. The office is staffed with two crime solicitors local to Newark – Ian Carter and Barbara McDonnell. We have since recruited a further Newark based lawyer – Legal Executive Advocate Nikki Carlisle – signalling a clear indication to continue to develop our business there.
Of course, we are in business. The rationale behind the investment that we make in training and recruitment of duty solicitors is that they provide access to new work through the duty solicitor rotas. Option 3 supports those firms who, like us, have chosen to locate their offices in Newark in order to provide legal aid services to that particular community.
Newark deserves its own duty solicitor rota
Newark legal executive advocate Nikki Carlisle
Newark-on-Trent is the largest urban area within the Newark and Sherwood District. It has a population of just over 37 000 residents. Of the three firms in Newark that currently undertaking criminal Legal Aid work, only our firm has office both in Mansfield and Newark.
Should Option 1 be adopted, Newark residents who are detained at Mansfield police station may very well be represented by a duty solicitor from a firm who only has an office in Mansfield. It is understandable that suspects will usually choose to have continuity of representation. This might be either whilst they remain on police bail, under investigation or following charge when the matter appears at court.
Prohibitive journey times
However, in seeking continuity, such clients would face a journey of 20 miles simply to see their solicitor to give instructions and take advice. By car that journey takes between 40 and 50 minutes. By public transport this time rises to 1 hour and 30 minutes for a single journey.
The same situation will of course arise in relation to residents of Mansfield who are represented by a duty solicitor who only has an office in Newark. It is true that many of those that require the services of criminal legal aid solicitors are vulnerable themselves and on a low income that would make such a journey very difficult.
It is our view that it is both unreasonable and unconscionable to expect those being investigated for criminal offences to have a return journey of three hours simply to see their solicitor. This stress and expense would be imposed on top of the emotional burden that the investigation of proceedings impose on any individual.
Local legal aid solicitors should be supported
Newark crime solicitor Barbara McDonnell
Option 2 supports those criminal legal aid firms who have chosen to locate their offices in Newark. This is in order to provide legal aid services to that community. It would mean that the arrangements within Option 2 could commence immediately following the closure of the Newark Custody Suite. Newark based firms would not have to suffer the inevitable financial hardship of not having access to Duty Solicitor work for a period of two months.
Such a decision would be seen as supportive of a legal aid provider base that it is acknowledged is financially fragile.
Perverse consequences of merging two duty schemes
The perverse consequences of Option 1 would be to permit automatic access to Newark residents requesting the duty solicitor to firms solely based in Mansfield. Access to such Mansfield residents would be granted to firms solely based in Newark.
Whilst some firms may see there is a financial advantage in having a place on a merged duty scheme following the closure of Newark custody suite, this would be to ignore the needs of local Newark residents. Financial advantage should never be allowed to outweigh the impact on those we represent and assist who are often ill-equipped to represent themselves.
On this basis, Options 2 and 3 would be unattractive and unacceptable to clients where the duty solicitor may or may not be based geographically convenient to them.
An increase in LAA costs?
The LAA will have to budget for increased travel claims from Newark firms to Mansfield custody suite following the closure of Newark custody suite. An additional consequence is likely to be that the LAA has to fund more instances of advice and assistance in the police station. It seems likely that clients, once they discover where their duty solicitor is based, will want to transfer to a local firm. Where the duty solicitor has been instructed a second fee may be properly claimable by the second local firm nearer to a suspects home address
Clients to choose for themselves
Following the closure of Newark custody suite, if clients wish to choose a geographically distant firm then that must be a matter for them. To have a geographically distant firm inflicted upon them is a separate matter that should be avoided where possible. The risk of a reduction in access to justice must be apparent to all who consider the issue. The problem would be avoided by the adoption of Option 2.
Instruct a Newark crime solicitor
VHS Fletchers criminal solicitors – Newark office
Despite the closure of Newark custody suite, the best way to ensure that you instruct a solicitor local to you if you are a Newark resident is to make sure you ask for VHS Fletchers if you are arrested and detained by the police. We offer free and independent legal advice on 01636 614013, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks of the year.
If you know the police want to speak to you, contact us and we will be able to make the necessary arrangements for you to be interviewed.
Should you face proceedings at either the Magistrates’ or Crown Court then we will see you at our Newark office to take your instructions and give you expert advice.
Please use the contact form below if you wish to email your enquiry.
Emma first met her client in the cells at Mansfield Magistrates’ Court. He had been kept by the police for a remand into custody. This was because he faced new charges of drink driving and driving whilst disqualified.
Unfortunately, these charges were his eighth relating to excess alcohol and third for driving whilst disqualified. He had received prison sentences for all of his more recent offences.
The seriousness of these offences was aggravated by his history of offending and because he was driving in breach of a court order.
Breaking the cycle of offending?
Sometimes it is right for a court to try and break a cycle of offending. In this particular case it was clear that Emma’s client had a problem with alcohol. When in drink he made poor choices and this led to the offending that kept on bringing him back to court.
The maximum sentence that could be imposed in his case was one of six months imprisonment, even for the combination of offences. As he had pleaded guilty at the first opportunity the sentence was likely to be less than the maximum, even bearing in mind his record.
This meant that he would serve less that 3 months in prison. He would not receive any assistance while in custody to address his problems. It seemed unlikely that any meaningful work would be done by probation under licence following his release.
An alcohol treatment requirement
The Magistrates were therefore presented with a stark choice. Emma persuaded them that there was a better option than a simple prison sentence. These sentences had failed to work in the past in terms of deterrence or rehabilitation.
After hearing Emma’s persuasive mitigation the Magistrates adopted the probation recommendation. This was for a suspended sentence coupled with an alcohol treatment requirement. The aim is to reduce or eliminate a person’s dependency upon alcohol. This is made possible by the help of specialist agencies working in the community.
Positive client feedback
Emma’s client knew how close he had been to receiving a further prison sentence. As a result he took the time to write a card and buy flowers to reflect the work Emma carried out on his behalf. While such thanks is not expected, it is always gratefully received.
Contact Mansfield motoring law solicitor Emma Cornell
Mansfield road traffic solicitor Emma Cornell
Whether you need advice on a police investigation or documentation that you have received from the court then you will wish to contact Mansfield motoring law solicitor Emma.
She will advise you on whether you have a potential defence or whether, for example, special reasons or exceptional exist to avoid a driving disqualification.
Please call her on 01623 675816 or use the contact form below.
The client’s situation was made worse by the circumstances of the case. He rolled his car in the early hours of the morning and then abandoned it. When he provided a sample of breath he was over twice the legal limit to drive.
Tim’s client had been out of trouble for sometime, having put significant difficulties with drink behind him. Unfortunately, the loss of a close family member meant that he turned once again to drink. This offence was committed at the end of that period.
An early guilty plea
We provided advice that an early guilty plea would stand our client in good stead at his sentencing date. Tim also advised that character references should be obtained setting out all of the good work that his client had done on his own behalf to tackle his drinking. They could also touch on the effect of the bereavement upon him.
Hospice staff were kind enough to provide written confirmation of the closeness of our client and the deceased, and the meetings that they had leading up to his death.
The Magistrates’ were persuaded that there should be some input from the probation service to investigate alternatives to custody. The probation office liaised with third party agencies who had been assisting our client on a voluntary basis since he was charged with this offence.
A prison sentence was avoided
Careful mitigation that stressed the particular circumstances of this case and our client’s clear intention to put his drinking behind him again mean that he received a community order. This involved unpaid work. Supervision was not necessary due to the efforts he was making on his own behalf.
He was of course subject to a lengthy driving disqualification. This can be reduced if he completes the alcohol impaired drivers course.
Contact a Mansfield road traffic solicitor
Although there are always serious risks involved with any allegation of drink driving there are sometimes compelling circumstances that will allow the court to depart from the expected sentence. An experienced solicitor such as Tim will provide you with advice as to how best to prepare for sentence, and then try to secure the best outcome through his expert mitigation on your behalf.
In a case such as this, free criminal legal aid might be available for your representation in the Magistrates’ Court dependent upon your means. We will always give you advice on how best to fund your case.
Mansfield road traffic solicitor Tim Haines
If you wish to discuss your case then please call Tim on 01623 675816 or use the enquiry form below.
Mansfield crime solicitor Tim Haines secured another not guilty verdict for a client before Mansfield Magistrates’ Court despite agreed bad character evidence.
His client faced an allegation of going equipped to steal. He was stopped by the police walking home with a bag of tools. He was also in possession of a mini motor bike that did not work.
The police chose to arrest him. A radio check on our client’s record revealed convictions for dishonesty and going equipped offences.
Tim’s client had a defence that he was advised to provide in interview. He maintained that he had put his offending behind him. Instead he had been at a friend’s house trying to mend the mini motorbike. He was on his way home when stopped by the police.
The police office went to the trouble of producing a map of the route taken. This was intended to show that our client was not taking direct route. A statement had also been taken from a witness purporting to be an expert. The statement contained details of what crimes the tools could have been used for.
A clear trial strategy
Tim used his substantial experience as a trial advocate to decide a trial strategy. He was able to agree the prosecution evidence but comments that were simply opinion were removed by agreement. As a result, the Magistrates’ did not have the opportunity to hear ‘live’ evidence from a police officer.
Bad character evidence neutralised
The prosecution had also served an application to have bad character evidence before the Magistrates. Again, Tim’s experience meant that he accepted that there was no realistic challenge to this application. Instead, he planned how his client’s record could be used to his advantage.
Tim’s analysis of the record meant that he could point out to the Magistrates that his client had always pleaded guilty to crimes he had committed. He took any potential sting out of the prosecution cross examination of his client by having his client give evidence about his character at the outset. His client was then able to explain his past.
Strong closing speech
Tim was able to make a strong closing speech on behalf of his client because of his clear trial strategy. The Magistrates, in their reasons for find Tim’s client not guilty, mentioned that they had not relied upon the bad character evidence.
Tim’s client was naturally delighted by the outcome in the case.
Contact a Mansfield Criminal Defence Solicitor
Whether you face investigation by the police, or court proceedings, then you will want to instruct Tim Haines. He can be contacted on 01623 675816. Alternatively you can used the contact form below.
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:
Mansfield criminal solicitor Melanie Hoffman recently represented a client at a trial for allegations of domestic violence before Mansfield Magistrates’ Court. He faced charges of assaulting both his his estranged wife and teenage daughter during a visit to the former matrimonial home.
In police interview Mel’s client had answered questions, raising self defence on both counts without the benefit of legal advice. This account was maintained at his first Magistrates’ Court appearance and he entered not guilty pleas.
Pressure from the Bench
Mansfield Magistrates’ Court
These pleas were entered despite pressure being applied by the court in the form of an indication that custody would be the likely outcome in the event of conviction after trial. Alternatively, there was mention of a community order following an early guilty plea.
Mel’s client did not give in to this pressure, maintaining his instructions. As a result, Mel began her detailed trial preparation. This thorough examination of the statements highlighted a number of inconsistencies in the prosecution written witness statements and video interviews. This preparation allowed the careful editing of the video to ensure that information that was not relevant to the trial issue and would prejudice her client was removed.
Special Measure for Witnesses in Domestic Violence
At trial, Mel pursued a line of sensitive but meticulous cross-examination of both ex-wife and child witness. The former had the benefit of being screened from Mel’s client, the latter was questioned across a video link. This measures are common place in such trials.
During this questioning the inconsistencies previously noted by Mel during her case preparation began to emerge.
Mel’s client gave evidence on his own behalf. This was consistent with the explanation that he had given to the police in interview several months before.
Detailed Closing Speech
In her closing speech, Mel’s grasp of the case allowed her to take the Magistrates through the detail of the case, highlighting what she believed amounted to significant inconsistencies between the accounts of the prosecution witnesses. This was usefully contrasted with the consistent account given by her client. Mel also reminded the Magistrates that they would have to take into account her client’s good character, relevant to whether he was telling the truth and likely to have committed the offences.
She submitted that this combination of factors meant that the prosecution had not made the Magistrates sure of her client’s guilt. The Magistrates agreed with Mel’s representations and found her client not guilty of both charges. In their reasons they explained that owing to the inconsistencies high-lighted by Mel they weren’t sure that the defendant had acted in the manner alleged.
Restraining Order Refused
Unfortunately, there is now the opportunity for the prosecution to apply for a Restraining Order even where a person is found not guilty of all of the offences of domestic violence. The Crown chose to make such an application here, but Mel successfully opposed this application on the basis of the difficulties with the original evidence and the fact that there had been no suggestion of difficulties in the months between the allegation being made and trial.
Contact Melanie Hoffman
Are you at risk of losing your good name as a result of criminal allegations? Do you face allegations of domestic violence? If you wish to discuss a police investigation or court proceedings with Mel then please telephone her on 01623 675816 or email her here.
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.
Rob travelled to represent his client at Liverpool police station. he had been arrested on suspicion of assault. He advised his client to answer questions and make a counter complaint.
