News

Police Identification Challenged in Excess Alcohol Trial

April 21, 2017 Andrew Wesley

not guilty trial excess alcohol identification evidence — Nottingham crime solicitor Alex Chapman

Nottingham crime solicitor Alex Chapman secured an acquittal for a client facing a charge of driving with excess alcohol. The trial was heard before Nottingham Magistrates’ Court.

The issue at trial was the correctness of the identification. A police officer out on patrol saw a vehicle driving with a faulty brake light so the officer drove alongside the vehicle and spoke to the driver.

In response, the driver then drove away around a corner at speed. This aroused the police officer’s suspicions so he followed the vehicle. By the time he caught up with the vehicle a few seconds later, the vehicle was stationary. There was now nobody in the driver’s seat.

Defending a charge of excess alcohol

One male was stood outside the vehicle. Two males were sat on the backseat. The police officer believed that he immediately recognised our client, one of the back seat passengers, as the driver of the vehicle. Because of this he asked him to provide a roadside breath test, which he failed. As a result he was arrested for driving with excess alcohol.

Alex’s client, a Polish national, insisted throughout that the officer had made a mistake. He claimed that one of the other males had been the driver.

The only issue in the case was the correctness of the identification. In order to convict the Magistrates would have to be sure that the officer had not made a mistake. If there was a reasonable doubt as to that, then Alex’s client would be found not guilty.

As a result, Alex directed all of his cross examination to showing that the necessary doubt was present. The officer admitted that he had spoken to the driver for less than three seconds. He accepted that it was dark at the time. Although there was street lighting, the driver was sat inside car. The interior light was not on so the inside of the car was in darkness.

Can you be ‘1 million per cent’ sure?

Alex showed the officer a photograph of his client’s friend. He had been the other male sat in the backseat at the time of the arrest. The photograph was taken on the night in question. The officer conceded that they looked very similar. He could not be moved, however, on the correctness of the identification. He continued to maintain that he was “one million percent sure” that Alex’s client had been the driver.

Our client gave evidence along with his friend. His friend’s evidence was that he had been the driver. He stated that he had been taking the car for a test drive and panicked when he saw the police because he did not have insurance. He acknowledged that he knew he was admitting an offence himself but told the court he could not let his friend be wrongly convicted.

The third male who had been outside the car was the owner of the vehicle. He also attended to give evidence and support our client’s case.

Turnbull Guidelines and Identification

The quality of identification as well as the weight to be placed upon it is governed by the case of R -v- Turnbull. Alex directed his closing speech to the Magistrates to dealing with these issues. Although the officer himself was sure of the correctness of his identification, a convincing witness can still be mistaken. Alex argued that in all of the circumstances the officer could have made a mistake.

This argument was supported by his client’s full cooperation and consistent denials of responsibility. His account was also corroborated by two other witnesses.

The Magistrates found that despite the police officer’s confidence, they could not be sure of the correctness of the identification. Alex’s client was found not guilty of excess alcohol. Because of this he was not subject to the driving disqualification that would have followed a conviction.

Legal aid available

Despite being in work, Alex’s client was able to receive legal aid to ensure his free representation before the Magistrates’ Court. This was particularly important in his case as he required the assistance of an interpreter. Had there not been legal aid, he would have had to fund not only the case but interpreter’s fees himself when he gave instructions.

We will always investigate your entitlement to legal aid so that you receive affordable advice.

Contact a Nottingham criminal defence solicitor

If you are under investigation by the police or face court proceedings you will want to instruct an expert. Call our Nottingham office on 0115 9599550 or contact us using the form below.

If one of our other offices is more convenient then you can find our contact details here.

Contact

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.

Tag Archives: polish