Tag Archives: not guilty

News

Our Crown Court representation secures not guilty verdict

Senior Crown Court litigator Caine Ward and in-house counsel Steve Gosnell provided crown court representation to a client charged with a serious sexual offence.

The offending was said to have occurred over a period of two days and the alleged victim was known to  Caine’s client.  Originally there were two allegations made by the same complainant.  He was in his forties and of previous good character.

Free and independent police station advice

Caine’s client took the opportunity to have free and independent legal advice in the police station.  He answered all questions put to him.  He maintained that they were in a relationship and any contact was consensual.

Further, he went on the state that there would be material on both his and her phone that would support his account.  In particular, there would be messaging between her and her friends that would corroborate what he said.

Our client was released on police bail.  He was told that this was to permit the interrogation of the mobile phones in the case.  He remained on police bail for seven months.

Following investigation, the police and prosecution made a bizarre decision not to charge the most serious offence, but simply proceed with one of the allegations.  Bearing in mind both allegations hinged on the credibility of the same complainant this was hard to understand.

Prosecution pressured to review the case

When the case was first before the court statements were served.  It became clear why the prosecution were not proceeding with one of the charges as the complainant had changed her account in a significant way.  It remained hard to see why the prosecution were continuing with the second allegation in the circumstances.

Of greater concern was that requests for the phone evidence that the police had had seven months to secure went unheeded.  Caine drafted a defence statement.  This demonstrated the importance of the phone evidence.  He repeated the request when the defence statement was served.

Again, the prosecution delayed in providing the information.  Eventually, it was confirmed that the complainant had refused to hand over her mobile phone to the police so downloads could not be obtained.

The matter was listed for two pre-trial reviews so that pressure could be placed on the prosecution to review the case.  On both occasions, different Judges raised concerns about the wisdom of proceeding with the case.  In having the case listed we were able to keep up pressure on the prosecution to drop the prosecution.

Missing phone evidence

The prosecution finally confirmed that not only had the complainant’s phone not been handed to the police but that she had disposed of it and now had a new one.  As a result, all of the evidence had been lost.  The complainant maintained that she had never been asked for her phone.  This was at odds with unused material that Caine had seen.

In the end the prosecution were compelled to review the case one further time and decided to offer no evidence in the week before the trial.  A not guilty verdict was entered. This was clearly the right decision and removed any risk that our client would be convicted before a jury.

All of this was achieved with our client having the benefit of Crown Court criminal legal aid.

Instruct experts in Crown Court representation

We have an experienced team of crown court litigators and in-house advocates to provide you with expert crown court representation.  An important part of the preparation of your case will be to see whether the prosecution can be put in a position where it has to drop your case before trial.

If you wish to instruct Caine in a case then please telephone him on 0115 9599550 or use the contact form below.

Contact

News

Charge of supply of psychoactive substance dismissed

Nottingham crime and duty solicitor Jameel Malik represented a client who had been arrested of intentionally supplying a psychoactive substance into prison.  The recipient of the drugs was said to be her son in HMP Nottingham.

Supply of a psychoactive substance?

Following a prison visit from his mother, our client’s son had been randomly selected for a search.  He was wearing two pairs of boxer shorts and was in possession of green vegetable matter.

Once forensically examined, this was found to be a psychoactive substance with a weight of 103g.  The value of the substance if sold in prison by the gram was a little over £10 000.

Free and independent legal advice in police interview

psychoactive substance not guilty verdictJameel had first met his client in the police station when she had requested the free and independent legal advice of the duty solicitor.  She had given an account to the police in interview denying passing her son the psychoactive substance.  She did accept that she might have passed him a note or a bar of chocolate.

CCTV footage of the prison visit was produced by the police in interview. This showed his client and her partner in the visiting hall.  Both sat down at the table with our client’s son.  The CCTV footage clearly showed Jameel’s client pass something to her son who then placed two packages in his boxer shorts.

Proceedings at Nottingham Magistrates’ Court

psychoative substance nottingham solicitor
Nottingham Magistrates’ Court

Our client was charged with supplying a psychoactive substance.   The issue for trial was whether she had passed her son the substance during the visit.

Jameel provided advice about whether the case ought to remain in the Magistrates’ Court or be allocated to the Crown Court.  He successfully argued that trial could be dealt with before the Magistrates’ Court.

The matter proceeded to trial.  The CCTV footage was played.  Agreed evidence was read as to how the prison officers had retrieved the psychoactive substance.  The expert report proving the nature of the substance was also read, as were procedural issues relating to visitor searches.  Finally, our client’s interview with her denials were read out.

Submission of no case to answer

Having considered the evidence, Jameel then decided that it was appropriate to make a submission that there was insufficient evidence to allow the case to proceed.

He argued that even taking the prosecution case at its highest there was simply insufficient evidence to show that it was his client who had supplied the substance to her son.

He highlighted the following:

  • the amount of the substance was of significant size.  This was not discovered upon his client’s entry into the prison
  • the CCTV footage did not show what was passed
  • his search was actually two hours after the visit rather than immediately after the visit had taken place
  • there was a significant opportunity for the substance to have been acquired at another time during the morning.

Case dismissed

The Magistrates retired to consider the submission.  Upon their return they stated that they did not believe that the prosecution had  sufficient evidence to provide a case for Jameel’s client to answer.  The case was dismissed.

Instruct a criminal solicitor in Nottingham

If you are investigated for an offence then you will want to instruct a firm of solicitors that will try and provide you with continuity of representation between your initial arrest and final disposal in the Magistrates’ court.

We will try to make sure that you keep the same solicitor throughout your case to avoid you seeing a number of new faces and having to explain your account on more than one occasion.

psychoative substance supply magistrates trial
Notingham duty solicitor Jameel Malick

Don’t forget that our independent advice and representation in the police station will always be free of charge, and you may be entitled to free Magistrates’ Court representation under our legal aid contracts.

If you want to instruct Jameel in a case then please call him on 0115 9599550 or use the contact form below.

 

News

Rape Juries Reach Guilty Verdicts Before Deliberation

Majority of rape case juries reach guilty verdict before deliberation

Nearly half of all juries in rape cases come to a guilty verdict before they retire to the jury room to deliberate, research shows.

The study found that 43 per cent of jurors came to their decision in advance, with the figure as high as 83 per cent if they themselves had been the victim of a sexual assault. However, the jury room deliberations did have an impact, with 13 per cent changing their minds after discussion with fellow jurors.

The research also showed that a juror’s educational background had significant implications for verdicts. Those who never made it to degree level were more likely to vote “not guilty” because of an increased tendency to hold more sexually aggressive attitudes.

Mock rape trials used in study

 

The study was conducted by the University of Huddersfield with legal advice and support from St Johns Buildings, the Manchester barristers’ chambers, using mock trials. The findings may increase calls for jurors in the UK to be screened for pre-conceived bias before being selected, particularly in rape trials, the researchers said.

Ministry of Justice statistics from 2015 reveal that just 1,297 convictions of sexual offences were secured, representing less than four per cent of all cases recorded by police over the 12 months.

Dominic Willmott, a researcher at Huddersfield University and lecturer in forensic psychology at Leeds Trinity University, said that the research demonstrated “that for all the best efforts of the courts, juries are not necessarily offering a fair and impartial assessment of the evidence, particularly within rape cases.

Demographic and  personal attitudes key

“Past experiences play a huge role in shaping the person you are, and inevitably affects your view on society. As well as the importance of demographic features of the jurors, attitudes towards rape were found to be the strongest predictor of high numbers of not guilty verdicts.”

Nigel Booth, a barrister at St John’s Buildings, played the role of the judge, with other barristers acting for the prosecution and defence.

The content is from The Brief newsletter.  You can sign up here.

 

Uncategorized

Carefully prepared cross examination leads to not guilty verdict

Nottingham crime solicitor Lauren Fisher secured a not guilty verdict for her client following careful cross examination of a witness.  He faced an allegation of common assault.  He was said to have punched his partner once to the face when drunk.  She had visible injuries – bruising and swelling to her cheek bone.

Preparation of cross examination

In order to present your best case at trial, an experienced advocate will plan how best to ask the questions.  For example, in this case, Lauren would have to question the witness to suggest that she was not telling the truth.  If a witness’s truthfulness is challenged immediately, it might be unlikely that they help an advocate with other information that they could give.

As a result, Lauren questioned the witness first to establish that a third person had been present during the incident.  The witness, in answer to questions, confirmed that this person was a mutual friend who would not favour one party over another.  They had no reason to lie that the witness could think of.

This information was important as the third person was to be called as a witness for the defence.

Lauren then moved on to more contentious issues.  She cross-examined the witness on the important differences between the account she gave in her statement and the evidence she had given to the court.

At one point the witness conceded that she had “tried to contact the police to change my statement as I knew it did not make sense”.  This was an important concession by the witness.

Self-Defence raised

Our client’s defence was that he had been acting in self-defence but the injury was accidental.  He maintained that he was being hit by both the complainant and her friend.  Perhaps unsurprisingly, if this was true, her friend had not given a statement to the police.

A statement had been taken by Lauren from the mutual friend who had been present.  Unfortunately the police had failed to seek accounts from anybody else who had witnessed the incident.

Closing speech dealt with the detail

In closing, Lauren was able to outline all of the problems and inconsistencies with the account that the witness had given under cross examination.  She was able to point to the consistent account given by her client and the third party.

After due consideration, the Magistrates found her client not guilty.

 

Lauren’s client took the time to thank her for the work that she had put into his case.  He wrote:

“Hi Lauren, I’m very happy with what happened today.  You are a good solicitor.  The way you handled the whole situation was good. Thank you again for helping me”

Contact Nottingham crime solicitor Lauren Fisher

cross examination not guilty verdict nottingham solicitor
Nottingham crime solicitor Lauren Fisher

Whether you face a police investigation or proceedings before the Magistrates’ or Crown Court you will wish to instruct a solicitor who will spend the time preparing your case.  This might involve making sure that advice on the law is correct.  If could be giving careful advice on plea or sentence.  In this case it involved preparing a structure for cross examination of a witness to ensure Lauren’s client had the best opportunity for a not guilty verdict.

If you want to contact Lauren to discuss a case then please call her on 0115 9599550.  Alternatively you can use the contact form below.

Contact

News

Not guilty verdict for client with benefit of free criminal legal aid

Mansfield criminal legal aid solicitor Tim Haines secured a not guilty verdict before the Magistrates’ court.  In doing so he preserved her good character.

Tim’s client faced a very emotive charge.  She had been a care assistance and faced an allegation of pushing a vulnerable person in her care who suffered from dementia.

The allegation was made by three purported eye-witnesses.  Although all three maintained that they had seen the incident each witness gave very different account about what had happened.  Tim used his expert cross-examination to make all of these inconsistencies obvious to the Magistrates hearing the trial.

Tim’s client maintained that she had been a victim of a ‘witch-hunt’ owing to a clash of personalities at her place of employment.  This argument was supported by the manner of her dismissal which appeared unfair.

Our client was of good character.  Tim called character evidence in support of this.  His client had fully answered questions in police interview and gave an account consistent with those answers.

In closing, Tim was able to contrast the inconsistencies between the prosecution witnesses with the consistent account of his client.  He made sure that the Magistrates’ properly directed themselves as to the relevance of his client’s good character.

The Magistrates’ found his client not guilty, taking into account all of the evidence that was heard, making specific reference to our client’s consistent version of events as opposed to the prosecution’s differing accounts.

The advice, preparation and representation that this client received, both in the police station and in court, was free of charge to her.

Contact a Mansfield criminal legal aid solicitor

If you face a criminal allegation you will want to instruct an expert criminal solicitor to represent you.  Where possible, you will also want the benefit of free legal aid.

Advice and representation will always be free of charge from VHS Fletchers where you are being spoken to by the police under caution.  This is true whether you are under arrest or speaking to the police voluntarily, and whether you are at the police station or another place such as your home.

If you face court proceedings we will always ensure that we have fully investigated your entitlement to criminal legal aid.  In the Magistrates’ Court this means that your representation will be free of charge.  In the Crown Court it might be free or there may be a financial contribution.

criminal legal aid mansfield
Mansfield criminal legal aid solicitor Tim Haines

Please telephone Tim on 01623 675816 if you know that the police wish to speak to you or you face court proceedings.  We provide 24 hour emergency advice and representation.  Alternatively you can use the form below.

Contact

 

News

Lack of intention to permanently deprive leads to not guilty verdict

Nottingham crime solicitor Louise Wright represented a particularly vulnerable client facing trial for shop theft.  Her efforts on behalf of her client secured a not guilty verdict.  The issues were lack of dishonesty and an intention to permanently deprive.

Louise’s client was charged with a shop theft from a supermarket. She had been detained at the scene and goods recovered from her.   The police interview took place on a voluntary basis a week later.  Our client chose to proceed without legal advice and representation.

Lack of Intention to Permanently Deprive

In that interview she stated that she had gone to the shop with her friend, the co-accused.  She waited outside for  her friend but  when friend came out she had bags of stolen items.  Our client was instructed to go into the store and come back with the rest of the goods she hadn’t managed to steal.   Unfortunately our client acted on this, although she felt she had no choice.

Louise met her client for the first time at court.  When she took initial instructions she was told that she had entered the store  with the intention of being caught.  This was so that she could get away from her friend who frightened her.  When time was taken to explore the issues further it became clear that her intention was not dishonest.

Defence of duress considered

Consideration was given to whether the legal defence of ‘duress’ was available.  Louise advised her client that such a defence would not succeed in this case.  As a result she would be better served by concentrating on the issues of dishonesty and a lack of intention to permanently deprive the shop of the items.

Shop theft trial

A not guilty plea was entered at the first hearing.  Thereafter a bad character application successfully made by the prosecution.  Louise’s client had been convicted of shop theft with the same co-accused in November 2016.  As a result the prosecution argued that it undermined her defence in relation to this charge.

Additionally, if our client was convicted, the new offence would place her in breach of a court order and at risk of prison sentence.

Louise’s client attended for trial.  Unfortunately, as she was an alcoholic, she arrived heavily under the influence of alcohol.  As a result, Louise made an application to adjourn the trial.  This was rejected by the court.

As a result, the trial proceeded.  Louise’s client had no alternative but to give evidence despite her condition.  Her case was, however, assisted by extra work that Louise had carried out on her behalf.

Evidence had been obtained from our client’s support worker.  This showed that over a period of time prior to this incident she had complained of being scared and threatened by her co-accused.  The prosecution agreed that this evidence could be read to the Magistrates

Not Guilty Verdict

During her closing speech to the Magistrates, Louise directed the bench to the relevant legislation.  She highlighted the evidence that was to be relevant to their decision.  After a lengthy deliberation the Magistrates’ found her client ‘not guilty’

Contact Nottingham crime solicitor Louise Wright

This case no doubt demonstrates the importance of instructing a solicitor who will dedicate their time to securing the best result for you.  This will be important to you, even if your case may not seem serious to others.

High quality advice and representation, including the gathering of all relevant evidence, will make a difference whether you are interviewed by the police or face court proceedings.

If you wish to instruct Louise to represent you either at court or the police station then please contact her on 0115 9599550.  Alternatively you can use the contact form below.

Contact

News

Jury Trial Success in Pervert Course of Justice Case

Nottingham criminal solicitor advocate Andrew Wesley helped ensure a not guilty verdict for his client who faced jury trial because it was alleged he had perverted the course of justice.

Andrew’s client had already been dealt with by another advocate following his guilty plea to his involvement in an insurance fraud where he had pleaded guilty.

Both cases had been prepared by senior Crown Court litigator Caine Ward.

Crown Court jury trial for perverting the course of justice

This case was related to the fraud. It was said that our client had destroyed an iPhone because it had incriminating photos showing fraudulent accidents.  The phone had been destroyed after our client had been arrested so the police wouldn’t find it.

The only evidence that the prosecution had that the phone existed in the first place, let alone was destroyed, came from an ex-partner.  In her statement the incident was dealt with in two or three lines of type so no detail was given at all.

Disclosure was received from the prosecution that showed that she was unhappy with our client following the break up of their relationship.  Further evidence obtained showed that following the break up she had made several unwanted visits to our client’s address.  On each occasion the police had to be called, and on more than one occasion she had to be taken away by the police.  This, and evidence of her hatred for our client seen on screenshots of Messenger conversations, lent support to our client’s argument that she had made up the story to get him into further trouble with the police.

Expert cross-examination of the prosecution witness

The case proceeded to jury trial.  The witness attended so gave her evidence in accordance with her statement.  Andrew had planned his cross examination so that he concentrated on relevant issues.  It was structured to deal with the following areas:

  • their relationship and how it ended
  • police involvement at our client’s address
  • her feelings for our client as seen on the Messenger chat
  • her delay in reporting the allegations to the police
  • the detail of the incident bearing in mind the brevity of her statement

The last point was perhaps the most important.  When pressed for detail she was unable to provide it or seemed to be making up the detail to provide an answer.  This was not lost on the jury.

Andrew’s client gave evidence on his own behalf, and although the experience and some of the questions asked were clearly frustrating, he gave evidence well.

Closing speech directed at the burden of proof

In closing, Andrew’s speech was able to concentrate on the issues that might be troubling the jury most.  In particular, there was a lack of supporting evidence that such a phone ever ever existed whereas there was evidence that the witness might be prepared to lie about him.

Our client, of course, had the benefit of the fact that the prosecution had to prove the case so that the jury was sure of his guilt.  By a unanimous verdict the jury decided that the prosecution hadn’t done so and he was found ‘not guilty’.

Positive feedback for the service we provide

Although our client remains a serving prisoner and was unable to offer written feedback on the service provided his family did so.  His partner felt able to write in these terms

“I couldn’t of asked for a better solicitor – Andrew Wesley and team did a fantastic job representing my partner.”

His mother watched the trial so was able to comment

 “couldn’t of asked for better representation thank you so much.”

Crown Court Criminal Legal Aid

crown court legal aid jury trialOur client benefited from legal aid so in his case it meant that our representation was free of charge. It is only in exceptional cases that legal aid funding will not be available to a defendant.  This is because it is unlikely that the income of most defendants be too high for legal aid.

Contact a Nottingham Criminal Defence Solicitor

east midlands crime solicitor jury trial
VHS Fletchers East Midlands Offices

Whether you face a police investigation, Magistrates’ Court trial or Crown Court jury trial you will want to engage a specialist firm to ensure the best possible outcome for you.  We provide nationwide advice and representation from our offices across the East Midlands.  Contact details for your nearest office can be found here.

Alternatively you can use the form below to send us an enquiry.

Contact

News

Bodycam Footage Helps Secure Not Guilty Verdict in Five Minutes

police bodycam footage trial solicitor
Nottingham crown court

Nottingham crime solicitor advocate Andrew Wesley recently represented a client at trial before Nottingham Crown Court.  The allegation was that his client had assaulted a teenager in the street with a stick.  Fortunately, the aftermath of the incident was captured in police bodycam footage so the jury acquitted five minutes after retiring.

Client was a victim of anti-social behaviour

The background to the case was that Andrew’s client and his housemate had been subject to anti-social behaviour for eighteen months prior to this allegation.  This had involved abuse, threats, damage to property and assaults.  Although the police had been involved time and again, they advised our client that there was insufficient evidence to bring any of the culprits to justice.

The day prior to the allegation, both householders had suffered assaults and damage to the fencing of their address.  The problems started again on the night of the allegation.  The fence was damaged again, youths entered their garden, and threats were made.

As well as calling the police, our client’s housemate went onto the street to try and film those involved.  She was hit with a stick so our client had to intervene and pull her back into their house.

The police were called again, but in the meantime a large group had gathered, including the parents of one of the alleged victims of an assault, and further threats were made.

Bodycam Footage captured initial complaint

The crowd dispersed because the police arrived, and our client and his housemate made a complaint.  This was captured on bodycam footage.  Unknown to them, however, one of the youths had turned matters around and claimed that she was the person assaulted by our client.  Two of her friends backed her up in her story.

Andrew’s client elected to have his trial by jury which in this case was a wise choice.  Although there were obvious problems with the prosecution case, a choice had been made to proceed.

Evidence before the jury that could not be challenged

Through careful preparation, Andrew was able to rely on evidence that could not be challenged by the prosecution so helping the jury decide that his client was not guilty.  This included:

  • the 999 call of the housemate that showed the witnesses could not have been telling the truth
  • the injuries of the complainant were minor so not consistent with the assault described at all
  • footage taken by our client showed the mood of the group after the incident to be threatening and abusive
  • police bodycam footage captured the first complaints of our client and his housemate as well as their demeanour.

Both our client and his witness gave evidence well.

Although the prosecution witnesses also came over well before the jury, there was a large amount of evidence that at the very least suggested that they were not telling the truth.  The jury took no time at all to come to that conclusion so our client was found not guilty.

Positive client feedback

We have been provided with feedback as to how we dealt with the case from beginning to end.  It is particularly pleasing to be able to read comments such as:

ilkeston crime solicitor bodycam footage Further, the praise was not dependent upon the outcome for our client:

ilkeston criminal defence lawyer bodycam footage

Finally, we know the stress that police investigations or court proceedings place on both our clients and other people involved in the case.  Our aim is to try and remove as much of that pressure as possible.

ilkeston legal aid solicitor bodycam footage

Contact a Criminal Law Specialist

This case was prepared from our Ilkeston office by experienced crime solicitor Chris Evans.  We are the only firm providing advice and representation under the legal aid scheme in Ilkeston.

You can find your nearest office here but we are able to provide our services nationwide.  Alternatively, you can use the form below to contact us.

Contact

News

Bad Character Evidence Ignored by Mansfield Magistrates

bad character evidence mansfield crime solicitor
Mansfield criminal solicitor Tim Haines

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.

Contact

News

Not guilty verdict in road rage trial at Nottingham

Nottingham crime solicitor Alex Chapman represented a client at Nottingham Magistrates’ Court. The allegations arose out of an alleged road rage incident.

The case proceeded to trial and after witnesses had been called Alex addressed the Magistrates on the evidence.  Our client was found not guilty.

The Allegation

It was said to be a road rage incident.  The complainant and Alex’s client were said to have pulled over in their vehicles.  They then got out of their cars and confronted one another.

The complainant told the Court that our client punched him twice without provocation. Alex’s client denied punching the complainant in his police interview.  Instead he said that he did have to push him backwards to defend himself.  This was only after the complainant had tried to punch him first.

Command of the evidence allowed focused questions

Alex’s command of the evidence allowed him to cross-examined the complainant in detail.  In particular he asked him about several comments he had made to the police in his statement.  He had not repeated them in court.

For example, he had stated that when he got out of his car his ‘blood was up’.  He accepted that he had been swearing at our client.  The complainant also said that he practised mixed-martial-arts.  A belief had been expressed that he could have ‘wiped the floor’ with our client if he had wanted.

These comments were capable of raising a doubt as to who was the aggressor.  The Magistrates might be suspicious of the complainant’s motives for withholding this information.

The complainant’s wife gave evidence as well.  Under careful cross examination Alex brought out a number of discrepancies.  The effect of this was to cast substantial doubt over the Prosecution case.

Our clients was a victim of road rage

Alex’s client gave evidence. He explained that his wife, mother-in-law and two young children were present at the scene. The Court was told Court that the Complainant had been acting extremely aggressively.  The complainant swung a punch at him first so he had little choice but to push him away.

Our client’s wife also attended to give evidence,  Although extremely nervous, she gave an account entirely consistent with that of her husband.

Burden and standard of proof

In order to convict our client the Magistrates’ had to be sure of his guilt.  He did not have to prove anything.  Alex addressed the Magistrates in his closing speech.  Discrepancies in the Prosecution case were highlighted to the Court.  Alex reminded the bench of the level of aggression expressed by the complainant in his original police statement.

It appeared that the complainant had been unable to contain his own bravado when he had spoken to the police officer.  This revealed the truth of the incident.

In the circumstances Alex’s client had little reason to have punched the complainant without provocation as described.

On considering all of the evidence the Magistrates decided that Alex’s client was not guilty.

Free legal aid funding

Alex’s client was financially eligible for legal aid to ensure his free representation before the Magistrates’ Court.

Contact a Nottingham criminal defence lawyer

If you are under investigation by the police or face court proceedings then you will want to seek expert advice and representation in your case.

The trial here was at Nottingham Magistrates’ Court.  Alex’s client lived in the Chesterfield area. Alex was able to see him at our Chesterfield office to prepare his case.  This prevented a lengthy, expensive and inconvenient journey for him and his family.  We will always seek to prepare your case in the most convenient manner for you.

If you wish to speak to one of our lawyers then please contact your nearest office.  Details are here.

Alternatively you can use the following contact form:

Contact