Tag Archives: prison

News

Offences taken into consideration (‘TICs’)

What are offences taken into consideration or ‘TICs’?

These are offences taken into consideration at the time of sentencing.  These ‘TICs’ are not offences that are charged.

When will a person be asked about them?

 Where someone has pleaded guilty to an offence or offences, or is expected to do so, or are due to be sentenced after trial, a person can admit other matters so that they can be offences taken into consideration at that sentencing hearing.

As well as a person volunteering offences, the police may also approach them to ask if they want to accept any TICs.  It is crucial that free and independent legal advice is obtained at this stage as there are consequences and risks to having offences taken into consideration on sentence.

What happens if I want to admit TICs?

 You will be spoken to under caution.  If you do admit other offences and the police and prosecution agree, a schedule of the offences will offences taken into considerationbe prepared and placed before the court.

It is then for the court to decide whether or not to take them into account when you are sentenced.

The positive side of such a process is that the court will consider the fact that you have assisted the police and shown a genuine desire to “wipe the slate clean”.  This will support any suggestion of genuine remorse for any offending.  More can be found about such mitigation here.

Additionally, the police will no longer be searching for the person responsible for these offences so there will be no risk of future arrests and sentence.

Offences taken into consideration will make a difference to your sentence.  Any sentence will be longer as a result of the TICs,  Any increase, however, may not be as much as if you were sentenced separately for those offences.

The negative consequences of TICs

On the negative side, the acceptance of offences taken into consideration may result in a greatly increased sentence.  They will be treated as an aggravating feature of your offending.  This will be especially true if there is a large number of TICs.

The total sentence imposed has to reflect all of the offending behaviour.

A defendant can also be ordered to pay compensation in relation to TICs.

Finally, it may be that the offences might never have been linked to any suspect.  As a result, a defendant may be admitting more than could ever be proved.  As a result there will be a trade off between peace of mind as against looking over your shoulder wondering whether your past will catch up with you.

Wiping the slate clean

If you wish to wipe the slate clean it is important to ensure that all outstanding offences are admitted, otherwise you may not receive any discount if a future prosecution is brought.

In the recent case of Murray [2018] EWCA Crim 1252 the court observed (citing an earlier case of McLean [2017] EWCA Crim 170):

“It seems to us however that this appellant must have made a conscious choice not to disclose the July 2014 matter in the hope that it would go undetected. In those circumstances he cannot now claim to be sentenced as if both matters should have been dealt with together in January 2015. To permit that to happen at this stage would be unjust to the public interest in giving the appellant an undeserved, uncovenanted bonus. This case therefore is a salutary illustration of the benefits which can accrue to offenders from making voluntary admissions of additional offending and the risks that they run if they choose not to do so.”

What sort of offences can be TIC’d?

 Similar offending is likely to be accepted as a TIC. An offence is unlikely to be accepted as a TIC if –

  • it is an admission to an offence more serious than the one you have pleaded guilty to;
  • it is an offence that would attract disqualification or penalty points on conviction;
  • if it is an offence committed in breach of an earlier sentence;
  • where it is an offence completely dissimilar to the one charged; or
  • where it is a specified offence when the charged offence is not.

If further offences are admitted will they definitely be offences taken into consideration?

 Not necessarily.

Admissions in the circumstances above may lead to further criminal charges being brought against a defendant.  This is why it is important to seek free and independent legal advice.

How can we help in these circumstances?

Any advice as to whether to accept TICs or not is likely to be dependent on both your personal circumstances and the offences involved.

If we are already representing you then we will be able to take your instructions and provide you with advice on the likely effect of admitting further offences to be taken into consideration.

Where we do not currently act for you and you want our expert advice then please contact your nearest office.  Our independent legal advice in police interview will always be free of charge to you under the criminal legal aid scheme.

 

News

Defending a charge of Threats to Kill

How many times have you said something like ‘I’m going to kill you’?  Most of the time this will simply be something said in the heat of the moment rather than genuine threats to kill.

If, however, you make such a threat and intend that another would fear it would be carried out then you will be committing an offence of making threats to kill.

The offence is under section 16 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. Even though the legislation is very old it is still a commonly used charge. The key part of the offence is that a person intend another to fear that the threat would be carried out.

Is there a defence to threats to kill?

 If you make the threat in self-defence or in the prevention of crime you may have a defence of lawful excuse.  Whether any threat made was reasonable in the circumstances will be a matter for the magistrates or jury.

Equally, a comment made in temper or jest, with no intent to make anyone fear it would be carried out, would not be an offence.

Evidence of previous history between the parties is admissible as tending to prove that the defendant intended his words to be taken seriously (Williams (C.I.), 84 Cr.App.R. 299, CA.)

What if the threats to kill are made to someone else?

 You do not have to make the threat directly to the person, it may be through a third party.

For example, a man in prison made threats to a prison officer that he was going to kill his ex-girlfriend, he was convicted and received five years imprisonment. The threats were taken especially seriously as he had a previous conviction for the manslaughter of his wife.

What sentence can I expect?

The offence can encompass a wide range of offending so in sentencing the court will look at a variety of factors.  These can include the following examples:

  • was there a weapon?
  • was it a threat in the heat of the moment?
  • the impact on the victim
  • repeated threats or a single calculated threat?

An example is a case involving threats to kill made to an arresting officer.  The offender knew detail about the officer’s home life which added weight to the threats.  As a result he was sentenced to 2 years imprisonment.

When a weapon is present when threats are being made the offence is much more serious.  An offender who threatened his former partner with a sword received five years imprisonment.

Sentences imposed can range from a community order for an offence that constitutes one threat made in the heat of the moment, through to imprisonment up to a maximum of 10 years for repeated threats or the presence of a weapon.

How can we help defend in a case of threats to kill?

 As you can see, making threats to kill is a serious allegations and the law relating to defences can be complex.

As a result, if you are arrested or know that the police wish to speak to you about an offence then 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.

Contact

News

What will happen if you don’t pay your court fine

In the crown court, while a fine is not the most common punishment meted out, when they are imposed they tend to be very large.  Before the Magistrates, any court fine imposed will still be a substantial share of weekly income.

Do I have to pay the court fine all at once?

Sometimes a court will order full payment (and may give a period of time for this to be completed), but in many cases, the court can order that you pay in instalments, usually weekly or monthly.

You will not be given time to pay your court fine (and therefore may be sent to prison forthwith if a fine isn’t paid) if:

  • in the case of an offence punishable by imprisonment, you appear to the judge to have sufficient means to pay forthwith;
  • it appears to the judge that you are unlikely to remain long enough at a place of abode in the UK to enable the payment of the fine to be enforced by other methods; or
  • on the occasion when the fine is imposed, the judge sentences you to an immediate prison sentence, custody for life, or detention in a young offender institution for that or another offence, or so sentences you for an offence in addition to forfeiting his recognisance, or you are already serving a sentence of custody for life or a term of imprisonment or detention.

Setting a default period

Section 139 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 requires a court to fix a period of imprisonment in default.

Imprisonment in default is an extra term of imprisonment that you might receive if a fine is not paid:

“…the purpose of ordering a sentence of imprisonment in default is designed to ensure, so far as possible, that the defendant found to have realisable assets in the amount […] ordered, should pay that amount and should obtain no advantage by refusing to do so. That authority stems not only from previous cases but also from the statutory provisions themselves.” (R v Smith [2009] EWCA Crim 344).

The maximum term is dependent on the size of the fine imposed:

An amount not exceeding £200 7 days
An amount exceeding £200 but not exceeding £500 14 days
An amount exceeding £500 but not exceeding £1,000 28 days
An amount exceeding £1,000 but not exceeding £2,500 45 days
An amount exceeding £2,500 but not exceeding £5,000 3 months
An amount exceeding £5,000 but not exceeding £10,000 6 months
An amount exceeding £10,000 but not exceeding £20,000 12 months
An amount exceeding £20,000 but not exceeding £50,000 18 months
An amount exceeding £50,000 but not exceeding £100,000 2 years
An amount exceeding £100,000 but not exceeding £250,000 3 years
An amount exceeding £250,000 but not exceeding £1 million 5 years
An amount exceeding £1 million 10 years

Will a court always set the maximum term in default?

The period in default will depend on the amount of the court fine and where it falls within the banding. So, a fine of £55,000 would probably attract a default period nearer 18 months than two years. But this is not an arithmetical exercise.

What happens if I do not pay my court fine?

If you wilfully refuse to pay the fine, and all other enforcement options have been exhausted, you will be ordered to serve the default term in prison.

It is therefore very important that you make contact with your solicitor if your financial circumstances change and you are unable to pay a financial penalty. It is always better to try and resolve difficulties earlier than wait for enforcement proceedings to commence.

I would sooner serve the time than pay the fine, is that possible?

Yes, and no!

If you do not pay, then you will go to prison. The court will, however, always try to secure enforcement first.  Imprisonment is not a free choice.  Note also that in relation to some financial penalties, such as confiscation, imprisonment in default does not extinguish the requirement to pay.

 How we can assist

The law concerning non-payment of fines and other financial penalties can be complicated so this article is intended to give only a very brief overview of the issues involved.

Legal aid can be available in certain cases of default where your liberty is at risk.

If you have any concerns about payment of your court fine or wish to discuss any other aspect of your case then please contact your nearest office.  Details can be found here.  Alternatively you can use the contact form below.

payment of court fine

Contact

 

News

Changes in sentencing guidelines for knife crime

Knife crime is very much on the political agenda, with a number of stabbings having taken place over the last few weeks.  These incidents resulted in death or serious injury.  In due course there will be a significant prison sentence for those found responsible.

Attention is now focused on using deterrent sentences to discourage knife possession.

Knew sentencing guideline for knife crime

The Sentencing Council, which is responsible for setting sentencing guidelines in England and Wales, has today issued a new guideline for knife crime offences.

The guideline will apply to all of those sentenced on or after 1 June 2018, regardless of the date of the offence.

knife crime sentencing guidelines

What offences does it cover?

The guideline applies to offences of:

  • Possession of an offensive weapon in a public place
  • Possession of an article with a blade/ point in a public place
  • Possession of an offensive weapon on school premises
  • Possession of an article with a blade/ point on school premises
  • Unauthorised possession in prison of a knife or offensive weapon
  • Threatening with an offensive weapon in a public place
  • Threatening with an article with a blade/ point in a public place
  • Threatening with an article with a blade/ point on school premises
  • Threatening with an offensive weapon on school premises

The guideline does not cover situations where a knife or other weapon is actually used to harm someone. This would come under other offences such as those relating to wounding, wounding with intent, manslaughter or murder.

Similarly, it does not include the use or possession of firearms which is covered by different legislation.

Does the guideline apply to all offenders?

The new guideline applies both to adults and those under 18. In relation to the latter, the guideline will work alongside the Sentencing Children and Young People guideline and encourage courts to look in far greater detail at the age and maturity, background and circumstances of each offender in order to reach the most appropriate sentence.  The primary aim in such cases will be to prevent re-offending.  This is the main function of the youth justice system.

What will be the effect of the new knife crime guidance?

Leading Court of Appeal judgements have emphasised the seriousness of this type of offending.  The court has set out sentence knife crime sentencing guidelinelevels that senior judges see as appropriate for dealing with offenders.

The proposed guideline takes these changes to the law and court judgments into account.  It then provides consolidated and up to date guidance. It ensures that those offenders convicted of offences involving knives or particularly dangerous weapons, as well as those who repeatedly offend, will receive the highest sentences.

The introduction of the guideline may, therefore, lead to some increases in sentence levels.  This will predominantly be in relation to adults convicted of possession offences.

Are there any minimum sentences for these offences?

The law on mandatory sentences for offences involving bladed articles or offensive weapons states:

Where an offender is convicted of a second (or further) bladed article/ offensive weapon offence the court must impose a mandatory minimum sentence of 6 months’ imprisonment for an adult or 4 months’ Detention and Training Order for a youth (under 18), unless satisfied that there are circumstances relating to the offence or the offender that make it unjust to do so in all of the circumstances.

Where an offender is convicted of threatening with a bladed article/ offensive weapon the court must impose a mandatory minimum sentence of 6 months’ imprisonment for an adult or 4 months’ Detention and Training Order for a youth (under 18), unless satisfied that there are circumstances relating to the offence or the offender that make it unjust to do so in all of the circumstances.

knife crime sentencing guidelineAs the guideline gives the highest sentences to those offenders who threaten with knives or highly dangerous weapons, these offenders will always receive sentences greater than six months. The combination of the legislation and the guideline may therefore mean that there is an increase in sentences received by some offenders convicted of these offences.

Where the seriousness of the combined offences is such that it falls far below the custody threshold, or where there has been a significant period of time between the offences, the court may consider it unjust to impose the statutory minimum sentence.

The court should consider the following factors to determine whether it would be unjust to impose the statutory minimum sentence:

  • Strong personal mitigation
  • Whether there is a strong prospect of rehabilitation
  • Whether custody will result in significant impact on others

What about ‘highly dangerous weapons’?

knife crime acid attacks sentenceAdditional guidance has been included as to what constitutes a highly dangerous weapon.

A straightforward offensive weapon is defined in legislation as ‘any article made or adapted for use for causing injury or is intended by the person having it with him for such use.

A highly dangerous weapon must, therefore, be an offensive weapon, including a corrosive substance (such as acid), whose dangerous nature must be substantially above and beyond the usual definition.

The court must determine whether the weapon is highly dangerous on the facts and circumstances of the case.

Instruct an expert in defending those accused of knife crime

It may be that you intend to deny an allegation that you are unlawfully in possession of a knife or other weapon.  If so, the guideline might mean that more cases are sent for trial at the Crown Court.  Our expert team will ensure that your best case is put forward.

Alternatively you might be pleading guilty.  Sentencing is a complex process.  All of our advocates understand how to navigate sentencing guidelines and ensure that they are not applied in a mechanistic manner.  Instead we seek to ensure that the court focuses on all the considerations relevant to you as an individual.

You can find your nearest office here.

knife crime
VHS Fletchers offices across the East Midlands

Alternatively you can use the contact form below.

News

New Domestic Abuse Sentencing Guideline Published

A new domestic abuse sentencing guideline was published on 22 February 2018, giving courts up to date guidance that emphasises the seriousness of offending involving domestic violence or other forms of abuse in a domestic setting.

domestic abuse sentencing guideline

What is domestic abuse?

There is no specific crime of domestic abuse.   It can be a feature of many offences including assault, sexual offences or harassment. The new domestic abuse sentencing guideline aims to ensure that the seriousness of these offences is properly taken into account when such offences are being sentenced.  The intention is that sufficient thought is also given to the need to address the offender’s behaviour and prevent re-offending.

Are there an existing domestic abuse sentencing guideline?

The new guideline replaces a domestic violence guideline which was published in 2006. A great deal has changed since then in terms of societal attitudes, expert thinking and terminology.

It was felt, therefore, that guidance for courts was therefore in need of revision to bring it up to date. ‘Domestic abuse’ is now the term used, rather than ‘domestic violence’.  This reflects that offences can involve psychological, sexual, financial or emotional abuse as well as physical violence.

When is the new guideline in force?

The domestic abuse sentencing guideline will apply to all offenders aged 16 and older sentenced on or after 24 May 2018.

How does this guideline change things?

The guideline identifies the principles relevant to the sentencing of cases involving domestic abuse, outlines how the seriousness of offences should be assessed and highlights other factors that should be taken into account.

It brings a distinct change in emphasis in relation to seriousness.

The previous sentencing guideline stated that offences committed in a domestic context should be seen as no less serious than those in a non-domestic context, whereas the new guideline emphasises that the fact an offence took place in a domestic context makes it more serious.

This is because domestic abuse is rarely a one-off incident, it is likely to become increasingly frequent and more serious the longer it continues and may result in death. It can also lead to lasting trauma for victims and their children.

For the first time, the guideline also includes a reference to abuse which is perpetrated through use of technology, such as email or text, social networking sites or tracking devices fitted to a victim’s car.  These are increasingly common methods by which domestic abuse can occur.

The guidelines recognise that these offences can affect people of all backgrounds and the guideline is also clear that abuse can occur between family members as well as between intimate partners.

Will anything else change?

Yes. In particular, there is now additional guidance on restraining orders, along with new guidance on Victim Personal Statements.

In relation to restraining orders, the guideline now includes additional guidance to assist the court with a renewed focus on keeping the victim safe, particularly for those who continue or resume their relationship with the offender.

The guideline further reminds courts to take any Victim Personal Statement into account.  Where there is no such statement, this is not an indication of any lack of harm to the victim.

Sentencing Council member Jill Gramann said:

“Domestic abuse comes in many forms such as harassment, assault and sex offences. The increasing use of technology in offending has meant that it has also evolved in its scope and impact. The new guideline will ensure that courts have the information they need to deal with the great range of offending and help prevent further abuse occurring.”

What factors will a court take into account on sentence?

The following list of non-exhaustive aggravating and mitigating factors are of particular relevance to offences committed in a domestic context and should be considered alongside offence specific factors.

 Aggravating Factors
  • Abuse of trust and abuse of power
  • Victim is particularly vulnerable.   Although all victims of domestic abuse are potentially vulnerable due to the nature of the abuse, but some victims of domestic abuse may be more vulnerable than others, and not all vulnerabilities are immediately apparent)
  • Steps taken to prevent the victim reporting an incident
  • Steps taken to prevent the victim obtaining assistance
  • Victim forced to leave home, or steps have to be taken to exclude the offender from the home to ensure the victim’s safety
  • Impact on children  as children can be adversely impacted by both direct and indirect exposure to domestic abuse
  • Using contact arrangements with a child to instigate an offence
  • A proven history of violence or threats by the offender in a domestic context
  • A history of disobedience to court orders such as, but not limited to, Domestic Violence Protection Orders, non-molestation orders and restraining orders
Mitigating Factors
  • Positive good character – as a general principle of sentencing, a court will take account of an offender’s positive good character. However, it is recognised that one of the factors that can allow domestic abuse to continue unnoticed for lengthy periods is the ability of the perpetrator to have a public and a private face. In respect of offences committed within a domestic context, an offender’s good character in relation to conduct outside these offences should generally be of no relevance where there is a proven pattern of behaviour
  • Evidence of genuine recognition of the need for change, and evidence of obtaining help or treatment to effect that change

Will those convicted get a longer sentence?

A spokesperson for the Sentencing Council commented:

‘Overall, it is likely that there will be an increase in sentence severity as a result of the introduction of the guideline, however, the guideline emphasises the need to consider the most appropriate sentence to prevent further re-offending and protect victims, which may be a community order.’

How we can help

Many people feel that sentencing is increasingly a mechanistic process, with a danger that the new domestic abuse sentencing guideline will be rigidly stuck to, and the individual considerations of defendants either ignored or played down.

However, case law over the last few years emphasises that courts should be cautious to ensure that this does not happen. All of our advocates are experienced in presenting the best mitigation possible to courts, ensuring the best possible outcome.

We can advise, for example, on the best way to present your regret and remorse following a guilty plea. 

A specific case study can be found here.

If you intend to fight your case at trial then we have a proven track record of securing not guilty verdicts.  Examples can be found here and here.

We can advise on how to tackle difficult issues relating to whether  hearsay evidence should be admitted in your case.

Contact a specialist in defending domestic abuse cases

The new domestic abuse sentencing guideline mean that it may be easier in the future for courts to justify a custodial sentence.  As a result, you will want to contact us as soon as the police make contact with you.

Your nearest office can be found here.  We provide a nationwide service, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. All advice and assistance in police interview will be free of charge to you.  Legal aid is available for many cases before the Magistrates’ and Crown Courts.

VHS Fletchers offices across the East Midlands
News

Disclosing private sexual images or ‘revenge porn’

“Revenge porn”, more formally known as the offence of disclosing private sexual images, is the criminal act of posting online intimate sexual pictures/video of a person without their consent.

It carries a potential prison sentence of up to 2 years.  We await the outcome of the consultation into a sentencing guideline for this offence.

Revenge porn used to cause maximum distress

In the meantime, however, it is clear that the most serious type of revenge porn will be conduct that is intended to maximise distress.  This might be where images are sent to  victim’s family who are very religious, or to a victim’s young siblings.  Offending that involves setting up fake internet profiles purporting to be the victim and inviting abuse or sexualised contact from strangers will also be treated very seriously.

At the other end of the sentencing range will be impulsive posting of revenge porn or where the offending is by those affected by a mental disorder or learning disability.

Aside from the manner of the offending, a court will also consider level of harm caused in any particular case.  Where very serious distress has been caused, or a victim is particularly vulnerable, or there had been a very real practical impact on a victim then these factors will all increase the seriousness of the offence and therefore the sentence.

Such cases will include instances of images being posted a victim’s business website, or circulated to business contacts.

Case Study

The offender and the victim had briefly been in a relationship which ended acrimoniously. He sent the victim an email which contained a naked picture of her and said he would post it on social media to
‘teach her a lesson’.

She discovered that he had created a false account in her name and used the naked photograph as the profile picture. He had also posted three other intimate photographs of her. The false account had been used to contact 12 of the victim’s friends. She contacted the social media company and they agreed to close the account but this took two days.

A few weeks later B set up another false account in the same way and then he used a different social media platform to send the photograph to some of the victim’s work colleagues.  The victim and her friends contacted the social media companies and eventually had the photographs removed. In total the naked picture of her was live on social media sites for 18 days.

The victim reported that the incidents had left her feeling extremely embarrassed and anxious.

The offender made admissions in police interview and pleaded guilty at the first opportunity.   On the proposed guideline he could expect a sentence of 20 weeks immediate imprisonment.

 

Another reason to think twice about revenge porn

If the prospect of a prison sentence is insufficient deterrent, a recent case shows that there is another good reason to think twice before exacting this type of revenge on a former lover.

Celebrity vlogger Chrissy Chambers took the matter one step further in launching an action in the High Court designed to secure no further infringement of her rights as well as substantial financial damages.

Her ex-partner allowed six sexual videos to be uploaded to the adult site redtube.com.  Ms Chambers was identified by name in three of those videos.  The videos were filmed in her home, but without her consent, and showed sexual activity between her and her then partner.

She argued in court that this conduct had caused her ‘serious distress’ resulting in post-traumatic distress disorder.

In the 19 months that the videos were online a large number of people had viewed them, including some people who wrote to her expressing their displeasure at the belief that she was ‘intentionally involved in pornography’.  These viewers were affected to such a degree that they did not wish to continue watching her YouTube channel.

High Court Financial Settlement

In a settlement agreed by the High Court on 18th January 2018, her partner accepted that the posting of the videos was in breach of confidence, misuse of private information and a breach of her Article 8 rights (the right to privacy).  To provide future protection, copyright in the videos was transferred to her.

While this is not the first action of its kind (singer Tulisa Contostavlos brought a similar case in 2012), it is notable that Ms Chambers has actively sought publicity about this case, when she could have chosen anonymity.

The legal action was funded by way of a crowd-funding campaign, itself designed to raise public awareness of this issue.

By doing so, she has put this issue into the public domain, and it may well act as a deterrent to those thinking of doing something similar in future.  It is also a reminder to victims that there could be an easy route to substantial damages, provided of course that the person committing this unlawful act has the means to pay them.

Contact us for specialist legal advice about disclosing private sexual images

It may be that you acted without thinking, or it may be that you are not responsible for the offending.  Either way, we will be able to provide you with advice and representation whether your case is a guilty plea or will be prepared for trial.

Please contact one of our experts in criminal law at your nearest office.  Alternatively you can use the contact form below.

Contact

 

News

Animal cruelty offences – the proposed increase in sentences

Proposed increase in sentences available for animal cruelty offences

The government has recently announced that it is planning to introduce legislation which will increase the maximum custodial sentence for animal cruelty offences under the Animal Welfare Act 2006.

The current limit is one of six months’ imprisonment.  The new proposals would raise this to five years. This would bring England and Wales into line with other countries’ policies on animal cruelty.  It would also correct an issue of proportionality in relation to penalties available for other offences.

Offences covered by the Act

The Animal Welfare Act 2006 makes all of the following a criminal offence:

  • causing animals unnecessary suffering (whether intentionally or not)
  • improperly docking dogs’ tails
  • causing unnecessary mutilation
  • administering unauthorised poisons or drugs
  • participating in the organisation or facilitation of animal fights
  • failing a duty of care to particular animals.

The Act adopts a wide definition of ‘animal’.  It includes any “vertebrate other than man.”

 

Current sentencing policy

The Act allows for a range of penalties.  These range from absolute discharges to custodial sentences of up to six months in length. The statistics on sentences imposed upon people convicted of animal cruelty in 2015 are revealing. In that year, 933 people were convicted of offences under the Animal Welfare Act.

A breakdown of that total shows the following distribution of the penalties for animal cruelty offences:

Penalty                                                          Number of people

Immediate custodial sentence                     91
Suspended sentence                                          202
Community sentence                                        341
Fine                                                                              177
Conditional discharge                                       100
Absolute discharge                                              3
Other                                                                            20

The RSPCA has investigated the custodial element of that breakdown further. Only three people received the maximum sentence of six months’ imprisonment. Those who received four-month sentences included, it is argued, offenders who gained credit for a guilty plea having committed an offence that potentially warranted a six-month sentence.

Why some say that increase is necessary

The view of the Government and various animal rights organisations is that a disconnect exists between these punishments and the  animal cruelty offences themselves.  Recent cases which have prompted this change include a man who purchased a number of puppies for the sole purpose of killing them by beating, choking and stabbing. The current sentences available to the courts are unable to do justice to such instances of cruelty.

The reforms are also supported by the manifest disparity between penalties for animal cruelty offences in England and Wales and those in other jurisdictions.

For example, the maximum sentences for animal cruelty in Germany and Northern Ireland are three years and five years respectively.

 

The argument is further strengthened by looking at the maximum sentences attached to other crimes. Fly tipping, for example, carries a maximum sentence of five years’ imprisonment. The same sentence is also the limit for abstracting electricity. Many would argue that the damage and requisite mind-set involved in animal cruelty offences should mean the maximum penalty should at least be to that of these other crimes.

The new guidelines and their context

The Government is planning to produce a draft of the new legislation towards the end of the year. The main provision will be the increase in the maximum sentence for animal cruelty from six months’ imprisonment to five years. People who commit the most serious crimes against animals, such as the example reported above, may then face a prison sentence which is measured in years.  It will be comparable to a conviction for an offence such as assault occasioning actual bodily harm.

This policy change follows a previous related announcement on the proposed use of CCTV cameras in slaughterhouses. The timing of both proposals represents an attempt to change the UK’s reputation for animal welfare as it leaves the European Union.

Contact one of our solicitors – we are here to help

Animal welfare legislation is complex and can lead to a prison sentence.   It therefore makes sense to instruct an expert if you are under investigation or facing court proceedings.

We will be able to provide you with free and independent legal advice at any interview under caution.  If charged we will provide you with the expert advice and representation that you will need to ensure the best outcome for you at court.

You can find details of your nearest office here.  Alternatively you can use the contact form below.

Contact

News

Drugs into prison – sentencing at Sheffield Crown Court

drugs into prison sentencing
Derby criminal solicitor advocate William Bennett

Derby criminal solicitor advocate William Bennett recently represented a client appearing before Sheffield Crown Court who had taken drugs into prison.

The substantial and powerful mitigation that William was able to put forward permitted the judge to depart from what would have usually been substantial sentence of immediate imprisonment.

 

Drugs into Prison

William’s client had taken both cannabis and anabolic steroids into a prison.  He intended to supply a serving prisoner.  The drugs were for onward supply in the prison.

At the time of the offence, our client had been a heroin addict.  As a result he had placed himself in a position where he was vulnerable to pressure from his dealer.  This was why he had committed the offence in the first place.

Powerful mitigation from client’s decision to change

William’s client had used the delay between initial arrest and sentence to good effect.  He had managed to become drug free and secure employment.  His guilty plea in this case was further evidence of a commitment to change.  He had been undertaking weekly drug tests for a six month period.  He received favourable reports from his work and was a doting father to his son.  A letter provided by his former partner was able to confirm this.

The Learned Judge was unable to suspend sentence because of strong guidance from the Court of Appeal as to the need for deterrent sentences in such cases.  He did, however, reduce the sentence dramatically from what was expected.  William’s client received a sentence of only ten weeks, meaning that he was likely to be released having served a little over three weeks in prison.

‘All that could be said’

The case is a good example of an experienced Judge being able to show leniency in a case where an experienced solicitor advocate has said “all that could be said”  for a realistic defendant.  In this case, our client, while recognising that custody was inevitable, had demonstrated that he was committed to rehabilitation and his family.

Contact a Criminal Defence Lawyer

We provide advice and representation at the police station, Magistrates’ and Crown Courts across the country.  We have six offices based in the East Midlands.  If you face police investigation or criminal proceedings then you can find your local office here.

If you wish to contact William Bennett then please telephone him on 01332 546818 or email him here.

 

News

Prohibited Item into Prison Sentencing

Nottingham criminal solicitor advocate Phil Plant

Nottingham criminal solicitor advocate Phil Plant recently travelled to Northampton Crown Court to represent his client who was charged with conveying a prohibited item into prison.  The case was prepared by senior Crown Court Litigator Sarah Lees-Collier.

Prohibited Item Conveyed into Prison

Our client had arranged a visit to see her boyfriend in prison.  At the same time she had arranged to convey a mobile telephone and a quantity of the substance spice that at the time had been a legal high.  It has now been made illegal.

The drop was intercepted at the visits area, having been caught on CCTV.  Suspicions had been aroused when our client was seen passing her baby to her boyfriend.  The baby was reluctant to be passed over.  As this was taking place the swap was noticed.  The items were then seized.

Early Instructions

Phil took instructions from  his client. She maintained that she felt that her boyfriend was under pressure from people inside the prison.  She had made repeated attempts to bring it to the attention of the authorities including writing to her local MP.  These problems were largely ignored save that the defendant was moved prisons.  Within days of the defendant being moved her was viciously attacked and left with a noticeable scar.  It was a result of this attack that she felt under compulsion to take the item in to the prison.

Phil gave early realistic advice that all of this information might be effective mitigation, but would not provide her with a defence to bringing a prohibited item into prison. She accepted this advice and entered a guilty plea at her first Crown Court appearance.

Suspended Sentence Imposed

The Judge was initially prepared to adjourn for reports, and once all of the necessary information was before the court the sentencing Judge was prepared to suspend what was an inevitable prison sentence.  The decision was based on the effective mitigation that Phil was able to put before the court.

Contact Us

Crown court litigator Sarah Lees-Collier

It will be important to you that you receive early advice that allows you to out your best case before the court, whether that is the Magistrates’ or Crown Court.  If you face proceedings, please contact Phil or Sarah on 0115 9599550 or email them here.