Tag Archives: not guilty

News

Pre-emptive strike defence succeeds at trial

pre-emptive strike self defence trial
Nottingham crime solicitor Derek Brown

Nottingham crime solicitor Derek Brown used persuasive advocacy to ensure that his client was found not guilty of assault on the basis of a reasonable pre-emptive strike.

Derek’s client was of good character.  The background to the case was that the complainant had been seeing our client’s boyfriend. This news came out of the blue, understandably causing Derek’s client upset.

Unfortunately, the complainant chose to try and make matters even more upsetting.  She parked outside our client’s house the night before the allegation was made, laughing and using behaviour calculated to provoke a response.

The very next day the complainant was parked up again.  She made an allegation that Derek’s client had approached her in her vehicle, reached through the window and punched her and pulled her hair.  The incident was said to have been unprovoked.  Later in the same day, our client was said to have approached the vehicle again and hit it.

Police Interview as a Volunteer

Our client had been interviewed by the police as a volunteer.  This means that she was not under arrest.  Her answers to questions were still tape-recorded however, and would have the same value as evidence in court even though she was not arrested.

She had chosen not to have a solicitor present in interview.  This might be an unfortunate effect of calling a suspect a volunteer – it perhaps creates an impression that the investigation or interview is somehow less important than when arrested.  Legal advice and representation remains free under legal aid.

Denied assault allegation

In interview, she explained that she had seen the complainant parked up and asked her what she was ‘playing at’.  At that time, the car window was fully wound up.  The complainant stated that she had done nothing wrong, but then suddenly opened the car door and took off her seat belt.

The complainant started to move to get out of the car.  Derek’s client maintained that her body language was aggressive.  She believed she was going to be attacked so before she could get out of her seat she punched her once to the face.  She did this because she believed she was going to be subject to an imminent attack.

Not guilty due to reasonable pre-emptive strike

At trial, both the complainant and Derek’s client gave evidence.  Derek recognised that potential weaknesses in his client’s case of a reasonable pre-emptive strike were:

  • the motive that she had for assaulting the complainant
  • the complainant was hit while still in the car

Despite the problems, Derek’s client gave evidence well.  Derek’s experience meant that he was able to address the Magistrates’ in a strong closing speech.  The Magistrates’ went on to find his client not guilty.

Contact a Nottingham Criminal Defence Lawyer

If you have a difficult case that may turn on whether you instruct an experienced lawyer, then please contact Derek on 0115 9599550 or email him here.

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

Domestic Violence Trial in Mansfield – Not Guilty

domestic violence trial mansfield crime solicitor tim haines
Mansfield criminal defence solicitor Tim Haines

Mansfield crime solicitor Tim Haines recently used all of his experience to secure a not guilty verdict in a domestic violence trial.  The case required sensitivity  and a clear trial strategy.

During an acrimonious relationship breakdown, Tim’s client was charged with an allegation of common assault.  He was said to have slapped his son in the presence of his estranged wife.

In interview and thereafter, Tim’s client always maintained his innocence.  He claimed that it was a false allegation designed to make sure he had to leave the matrimonial home.

Special Measures for Child Witness in Domestic Violence Trial

Tim knew that this had the potential to be an emotive trial.  Special Measures were granted to help the young witness give his best evidence.  This meant that he appeared in court over a video link. Although it was a distressing experience for him, Tim had to ask him questions about the incident to test whether witnesses were telling the truth.

Our client’s wife then gave evidence about the incident.

She was followed by Tim’s client who gave evidence on his own behalf along with a character witness.

Tim was then able to address the Magistrates’ as to the evidence in the case.  His client had been consistent in his account to both the police and the court, and was helped by the evidence of good character that he was able to provide.

Not Guilty Verdict and No Restraining Order

domestic violence trial mansfield criminal defence solicitors
Mansfield Magistrates’ Court

On the other hand, there were inconsistencies in the evidence of the young witness and our client’s wife that were significant and not easy to explain away.

As a result, after full deliberation, the Magistrates’ were not persuaded that the prosecution had proved the case to the criminal standard of proof.  They were not sure that Tim’s client had assaulted the child so was found ‘not guilty’.

Contact a Criminal Defence Solicitor in Mansfield

Allegations of domestic violence are treated seriously by the courts.  They also need handling with sensitivity.  The law can be complex, particularly where the prosecution do not seek to rely on the complainant’s evidence.

As a result, if you are arrested or know that the police wish to speak to you about an offence of domestic violence make sure you insist on your right to free and independent legal advice.

The advantages of such early advice legal advice can be found here.

If you have already been interviewed or face court proceedings we can still make a real difference to the outcome of your case.  Legal aid may well be available to fund your defence at court.

We have offices across the East Midlands.  You can find your most convenient office here.   Alternatively you can contact us using the form below.

defending domestic violence cases

Tim Haines can be contacted on 01623 675816 or by using the form below.

Contact

 

 

News

No Comment in Police Interview, Not Guilty at Court

Nottingham crime and regulatory solicitor Martin Hadley represented provided advice and representation to a client in police interview, then continued with his case before Nottingham Magistrates’ Court.  The decision relating to a ‘no comment’ interview made in the police station influenced the Crown Prosecution Service decision to drop the case before trial.

Arrest for Criminal Damage

Martin’s client was Initially arrested for a criminal damage.  Prior to police interview the interviewing office was unable to provide Martin with a great deal of evidence upon which to take instructions and advise his client as to whether he ought to answer questions in interview or not.

‘No Comment’ response to questions

Owing to this lack of evidence, Martin advised his client to respond ‘no comment’ to police questions in interview.  His client accepted that advice.  He was then placed on police bail to return to the police station.  On returning to the police station there was no further police interview.  Martin’s client was simply charged with the offence which investigations had revealed was now one of high damage.

Martin represented his client at the first court appearance.  He was presented with only a summary of the case.  There were no detailed police statements.  His client pleaded not guilty and the case was adjourned to trial.

Poor quality CCTV

Despite chasing the CPS, the evidence that the prosecution intended to rely upon, including CCTV  of the incident. The footage was of a poor quality, and the remaining evidence was contradictory.

On attending court for the trial, Martin was able to speak with the prosecutor to check that he shared Martin’s view about the state of the evidence.  The prosecutor was in agreement that he would be unable to prove the case and offered no evidence.  Martin’s client was found not guilty.

Advice led to not guilty verdict

Had Martin’s client not had the benefit of his advice at both the police station and court it was likely that he would have provided the police and prosecution with information or evidence that would have strengthened the case against him and may have left him with a conviction, a punishment from the court and compensation and costs to pay.

Circumstances in which a person might consider exercising their right to silence with a ‘no comment’ interview are discussed here.

Contact a Criminal Defence Lawyer

nottingham crime solicitor Martin Haldey
Nottingham crime and regulatory solicitor Martin Hadley

This case demonstrates that a specialist criminal defence solicitor from VHS Fletchers can make a difference to the outcome of your case.  This is particularly true when we are instructed at the beginning of your case when you have your first police interview.

You can read a number of reasons why you ought to seek our free and independent legal advice in police interview here.

We will always advise you about the availability of legal aid to fund your defence in the Magistrates’ Court.  You can read more about legal aid funding here.

You can contact Martin Hadley on 0115 9599550, or you can find a solicitor at your nearest office here.

Alternatively you can use the contact form below:

Contact

News

Police BodyCam Footage Key in Trial

police bodycam
Chesterfield partner and crime solicitor David Gittins

Chesterfield Crime solicitor David Gittins recently defended a client before Chesterfield Magistrates’ Court charged with an allegation of domestic assault.  Police Bodycam footage was of key importance.

David’s client was found not guilty following a full hearing of the evidence at trial.

David first met his in Chesterfield Court cells. He had been refused bail by the Police.  David made a successful bail application.  As we offer continuity of representation, David then continued to deal with the case on behalf of his client.

Client of Good Character

This involved several meetings with him at our Chesterfield office to prepare the case. David’s client had never been in trouble with the police or court before.   The potential effects of a conviction for this offence could be far reaching.

The Allegation

It was said that David’s client and partner had argued following a family meal. His partner demanded that he spend the night on the sofa.  It was said that in response to that he grabbed his partner by the throat and hit her, causing scratches to her neck and a cut to her lip.

A neighbour gave evidence that she had heard the incident through the wall and had spoken to the complainant before calling the police.

Self-Defence Argument

Our client provided a different version of events.  He said that he had been grabbed by his partner and hit to the face.  He had pushed her away and taken hold of her to prevent further attack.  He maintained that his actions were reasonable.  He acted in self-defence.

David’s client entered a not guilty plea and the case was listed for trial.   David asked the prosecution to serve additional evidence before the trial including body warn camera (BodyCam) footage from the police/  This turned out to be crucial to the defence.

Crucial Police BodyCam Footage

On behalf of his client, David had the complainant confirm parts of her evidence again.  Importantly she stated that as she didn’t strike her partner, he had no injuries.

David was then able to show the complainant and the Court the BodyCam footage from the police who attended the incident. Recorded comments and injuries meant that the complainant had to change her account.  Further inconsistencies in her account were then brought out by questioning.

Although the neighbour gave the same account that she had originally given to the police, David was easily able to establish that she could not give evidence as to what had actually happened on the other side of the wall.

Finally, David made sure that the prosecution read into evidence the agreed statement from a police officer confirming that his client has a fresh injury to his eye when first seen by the police.

David’s client then gave evidence on his own behalf.

Closing Speech

David was able to rely on the burden and standard of proof when speaking on behalf of his client.  The BodyCam footage and his client’s injuries undermined the account of the complainant.  In order to find his client guilty the Magistrates had to be sure that he used unlawful force.

The Magistrates returned their verdict after a short while. They could not be sure that the complainant’s account was true and as a result found David’s client not guilty.  He kept his good name.

Contact Us

Defendants in domestic violence cases might feel that it is difficult to put their case across.  This is why there will be a benefit in instructing a diligent and focused specialist criminal solicitor who will review all of the evidence in detail.

In this case, an analysis of what the complainant had said as recorded on the police Bodycam allowed David to demonstrate that the complainant might not be telling the truth.

If you wish David to represent you at either the police station or Magistrates’ Court please telephone 01246 28300 or email him here.

News

Disqualified Driving Trial Success

Nottingham criminal solicitor Nick Walsh recently represented a client who was being prosecuted for disqualified driving on two separate occasions.  Once again the progress of this case illustrates that working within the prescriptive Criminal Procedure Rules can place responsibility for providing evidence firmly with the prosecution.  disqualified driving nottingham criminal solicitorIt is another case that shows the failings of the prosecution to provide this evidence.

Nick’s client had been disqualified from driving following a conviction for dangerous driving in 2008.  The disqualification was subject to the mandatory provision that he remain disqualified from driving until he passed an extended driving test.

He had never taken such a test. The prosecution sought to rely on the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) record to prove the fact of the disqualification. There was no issue that Nick’s client was the person who was disqualified or that he was driving on the occasions alleged.

Disqualified Driving

Nick’s client informed him that a search of his driver record held with the DVLA showed that the disqualification had been removed. Nick carried out an identical search.  The result was a statement that the disqualification had been removed in 2012.

Pro-active Case Management

At his first appearance our client entered not guilty pleas.  Nick completed the case management form and clearly set out that the issue in the case was whether the disqualification had been removed.  Nick followed this with secure email contact suggesting the evidence that can be agreed.

Nick went further and repeated the relevant issue in correspondence – the prosecution would have to prove that his client remained disqualified from driving.

The prosecution did not respond to the request to agree evidence.  As a result Nick asked that the case be listed for a case management hearing where again the relevant evidential issues whereagain highlighted.

Crown Failed to Secure Admissable Evidence

On the day of trial the prosecution produced an email from the DVLA explaining that the reference to ‘removal’ meant removal from the public record only.  The information was not, however, provided in a form that could be placed in evidence before the court. driving whilst disqualified trial successThe prosecution applied to the court for an adjournment.  Bearing in mind the history of the case and Nick’s engagement with the case management procedure this application was refused.

The prosecution had had ample time to secure the evidence in an admissable form.  As a result the prosecution offered no evidence and Nick’s client was found not guilty of the two charges of disqualified driving.

Contact Nick Walsh

If you face allegations before the Magistrates’ Court and you wish to instruct and experienced solicitor who is capable of adapting to and taking advantage of the changes in case management then please contact Nick Walsh.  He can be telephoned on 0115 9599550 or email him here.

News

Historic Sex Allegation Trial

Senior Crown Court litigator Lisa Sawyer recently worked with counsel Michael Levy from  2 Bedford Row  Chambers to successfully defend a client against an historic sex allegation.

Defending an historic sex allegation

The offence was said to have taken place 10 years ago.  The incident wasn’t reported to the police until 2015. Such delays make the preparation of such cases more difficult. Memories are likely to fade and helpful witnesses will be difficult to locate.

The client maintained that any sexual activity was consensual.  He had had recent contact with the complainant on social media which the prosecution claimed indicated that he accepted committing the offences.

Lisa’s client knew that he faced very serious offences.  He was aware that a conviction would not only have an effect on him, but also his family and friends.

The Preparation

Although the case was in Nottingham, our client lived in Glasgow and he wished representation from counsel based in London.  He also had some learning difficulties and was dyslexic.  The geographical and personal complications meant that Lisa had to spend the time necessary to ensure that the client was happy with his instructions including:

  • two lengthy meetings over several hours to take the client through the papers and seek instructions
  • preparing typed instructions and giving the client the time to consider and amend them
  • attend conference with counsel and client in London
  • spend additional time explaining the trial process
  • attending the trial throughout

Lisa’s command of the case and knowledge of the client meant that she was able to reassure the client as to the preparation being undertaken on his case and assist counsel with a steer towards the relevant aspects of the case.

The Verdict

The client gave evidence well before the jury, and after four days the jury returned a not guilty verdict, to the relief of the client.

Historic sex allegation solicitor
Nottingham Crown Court

The preparation and outcome of this case demonstrates that advice and preparation from an experienced litigator on combination with the right advocate can ensure the best outcome for clients.

Contact a Crown Court defence specialist
Senior Crown Court Litigator Lisa Sawyer

Some further information about how we will prepare to defend your case here.  Although our offices are based in the East Midlands we will prepare nationwide representation.  You can find your nearest office here.

If you face an historic sex allegation or any other matter to be dealt with before the Crown Court then please contact Lisa on 0115 9599550.  Alternatively you can use the contact form below.

Contact

News

Not Guilty Verdict for Client

Senior Crown Court Litigator Laura Clarson prepared a case for a not guilty verdict.  Her client faced two allegations of dwelling house burglary, aggravated vehicle taking and simple taking of a vehicle without the owners consent.  If found guilty he would have received at least 3 years in prison.

Taken at face value, the evidence would appear extremely strong.  The client had been arrested having been traced to where he was hiding behind a car by a police dog.

The police had recovered two watches stolen from the burglary.  This had been committed less than an hour before the client’s arrest.  They were found next to a gate that Laura’s client had jumped over during the pursuit

Keys from a vehicle taken was found under the car our client was hiding behind. When searched he was also in possession of a mask and gloves.

The defence of the case was made that much more difficult by the fact that our client had a substantial record of previous convictions for burglary offence and vehicle taking.

Laura’s client was passionate in his denials of the allegation.  He maintained that a second person was responsible for the offending rather than him.  Presentation of this defence was potentially hampered by the fact that he failed to give this explanation at the police station when represented by another firm of solicitors.

Her preparation, on her client’s instructions, began to show how the prosecution case was perhaps not as strong as it first looked and a not guilty verdict could be secured.

The following points were usefully made:

  • A second male was present although police officers could not agree about that fact
  • The dog handler could have traced the second male had pursuing officers mentioned him
  • Although there were eye witnesses, identification parades did not take place as Laura’ client did not match the descriptions
  • Defence established that a second male had had these allegations ‘taken into consideration’ when sentenced earlier

Although emotional about what he said were the lies of the police as to what had happened on that day, Laura’s client gave clear and compelling evidence as to his lack of involvement.  His account was tested by the prosecutor in robust cross examination but our client did not waver.

After a little over five hours the jury returned with a not guilty verdict.  Laura’s client was understandably relieved, and pleased that Laura, his barrister and the jury gave his account the weight that it deserved.

Our client was represented by counsel Dan Bishop from 7 Bedford Row who gave clear and helpful tactical advice on how to best present the case to the jury.  Decisions were made has to how best to cross-examine the police officers (gently or robustly) and whether to call as a witness the person who had admitted the offences upon sentence.  Ultimately, the right decisions were made.

This case demonstrates the benefits of instructing a firm with a specialist Crown Court department.  Laura spends all of her working day preparing the most serious cases that come before the court.  This may be for trials or sentence, but her experience means that she will give each case the attention to detail that it needs.

She will also be able to advise you as to the availability of legal aid.  Information can be found here and here.

If you have a case that you wish to discuss with Laura please contact her at our Nottingham office by telephone 0115 9599550 or by email here.

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