Tag Archives: solicitor

News

Chesterfield Magistrates’ Court Trial Win

chesterfield criminal solicitor
Chesterfield Solicitor David Gittins

Chesterfield Crime solicitor David Gittins was recently instructed  by a client who faced an allegation of assault in a domestic setting.  The case was heard before Chesterfield Magistrates’ Court.

The case called for thorough and diligent preparation.  This included the development of a complex legal argument at a very late stage.  The argument resulted in the prosecution choosing not to pursue the case further.  David’s client had the benefit of a not guilty verdict.

We had represented our client during the investigation stage and David conducted the case before the Magistrates’ Court.

The Allegation

In November 2016 the David’s client was at his home address with his then partner.  An argument began which lasted several hours began. During the argument our client was said to have headbutted the complainant on 3 occasions and tried to bite her to the neck.

David’s client left the address and the police were called immediately by the complainant.  She had a visible injury to her head.

Full Account in Interview

When spoken to by the police, our client accepted that he had been present but had a different version of events.  He said that upon telling his partner during the argument that he was going to leave the property and see a friend the complainant attacked him.  She pushed her head into his, and our client had to push her away so he could leave.

chesterfield crime solicitor
Chesterfield Police Station Representative Rob Lowe

He was again prevented from leaving by being pulled backwards.  Our client again pushed her away fearing a further attack. He said he acted in reasonable self defence and he was in fact the victim.

This account was given in police interview when he was represented by accredited police station representative Rob Lowe.

The Trial

There were no other witnesses to the incident, so David set out to locate information gathered during the police investigation that would strengthen his client’s case.

David obtained a copy of the photograph taken of his client on arrest.  This and the custody record showed that he had no markings to his face supporting the idea that he had headbutted his partner.

Bad Character Evidence

Additionally, David attempted to secure information relating to an earlier incident from August 2016 when his client had called the police alleging that he had been assaulted.  Secondly David wrote to the CPS asking for information about an incident from August 2016 when the Defendant had called the Police alleging that the complainant in this matter had assaulted him.  This might support his client’s account in this case.

 

chesterfield magistrates' court
Chesterfield Magistrates’ Court

This information arrived very late.  This meant that David had to immediately draft an application for his bad character evidence to go before the trial court.  Although the prosecution responded, the response was supplied late and did not contain all of the information that it should.  The hearing was adjourned to the morning of the trial.

The additional information served was previous court decisions.  In fact, they did not help the prosecution.  David addressed the court on the application and this case law.  The court ruled in his client’s favour.  As a result, David was able to ask the complainant about this earlier incident.

Perhaps knowing that David’s client was in the right, the complainant did not attend court for the trial at Chesterfield Magistrates’ Court.  Although the prosecution could have applied to adjourn the case, the work that David had done persuaded them not make the application.  No evidence was offered and he was found not guilty.

Client Feedback

 

David’s client was very pleased, with this outcome, and after the hearing took the time to send David an email thanking him “for everything and the support you’ve provided in the case.”

Funding

David’s client did not have the benefit of legal aid for his case before Chesterfield Magistrates’ Court.  This was because his income was too high.  He therefore instructed David on a private basis. David gave a realistic and affordable quote from the outset with the Client being kept informed throughout by email, phone and office appointments.

At the conclusion of the David was successful in securing a Defendant’s Costs Order meaning that David’s bill would be paid out of Central Funds by the government and cost the Defendant nothing.

Contact David Gittins for Chesterfield Magistrates’ Court

Should you wish to contact Chesterfield crime solicitor David Gittins, please telephone him at our Chesterfield office 01246 283000 or email her here.

News

Chesterfield Criminal Defence Solicitor Secures Suspended Sentence

chesterfield criminal defence solicitor
Chesterfield Crime Solicitor Serena Simpson

Chesterfield criminal defence solicitor Serena Simpson recently defended a client before Chesterfield Magistrates Court.  The charges were allegations of domestic violence directed to a former partner.

The offences included an allegation of assault occasioning actual bodily harm (ABH) where she had stabbed the victim to the arm and chest with a knife. In addition it was alleged that Serena’s client had followed the male and further assaulted him by punching him to the face.

Serena first met her client when she had been refused bail by the police.  She was detained in the cells to be put before the court for a remand to prison custody.

On meeting the client, Serena immediately realised that she was a vulnerable adult herself.  She provided a history of domestic violence directed against her by the complainant in this case.

Offence on Bail

Serena’s client admitted that due to this prolonged abuse she had picked up a knife and stabbed her violent partner.  She had then turned herself in to the police.  She accepted that while on police bail she had seen the victim.  Although he had followed her, she had slapped him to the face.  There was a further minor public order offence that was denied.

The Prosecution suggested an alternative version in respect of the second allegation.  It was claimed that Serena’s client had followed the victim and punched him rather than slapped him.

Newton Hearing Listed

chesterfield criminal defence solicitor
Chesterfield Magistrates’ Court

Serena’s client pleaded guilty to both assaults.  As she disputed the extent of the allegations she put forward her account in a written ‘basis of plea’.  Her account was not accepted by the prosecution.  As the Court felt it would make a real difference to sentence the case was listed for a hearing to decide whether our client’s version of events was correct. This is a trial of issue or a ‘Newton Hearing’.

Serena successfully argued for bail for her client.  She then undertook the preparation for the contested hearing.  It became clear as the hearing the ex-partner did not want to attend court and give evidence.

Serena was keen to bring the case to an end as soon as possible as from meeting with her client it was clear that the ordeal of court proceedings was having an adverse effect on her.

Active Case Management

The case was listed for a case progression hearing at Serena’s request to ascertain whether the hearing was going to be effective in due course.  The prosecution was unable to make a decision until a week before the trial when it confirmed that a hearing was no longer sought and Serena’s client could be sentenced on her version of events.  Further, the public order allegation was dropped.

The case was not yet over, however.  Serena had to prepare for a difficult sentencing hearing as whatever the background her client had still admitted stabbing her ex-partner.

Starting Point of 18 Months?

Sentencing guidelines govern an allegation of ABH.  The prosecution argued that this case fell into the most serious band, and the starting point for any sentence ought to be 18 months imprisonment within a range of 1 to 3 years. Her case was likely to be committed to the Crown Court for sentence even with discount for plea.

Suspended Sentence

Serena provided mitigation to the court outlining the history of the relationship, including the violence directed at her client, and other elements of personal mitigation.  Serena persuaded the District Judge that the case did not fall into the top level of seriousness.  As a result, Serena’s client was able to receive a sentence of 16 weeks suspended for 2 years with a rehabilitation element.

The Judge made it clear that Serena’s mitigation had persuaded him to take this unusual course of action in a case involving knife crime.

Serena’s client was understandably delighted.

Legal Aid Funding

Our client had the benefit of legal aid.  This allowed her to instruct Chesterfield criminal defence solicitor Serena Simpson.  This advice and representation was free of charge to her.  Further information about funding can be found here.

Contact a Chesterfield Criminal Defence Solicitor

If you are investigated by the police or are at court you may wish to instruct Chesterfield criminal defence solicitors VHS Fletchers. Please telephone us at our Chesterfield office 01246 283000 or use the contact form below.

Contact

News

Public Nuisance – or Not?

 

Nottingham crime solicitor Lauren Fisher recently dealt with an unusual case of before Nottingham Magistrates’ Court.  Her client was charged with an offence of public nuisance.

Allegation of Public Nuisance

public nuisance nottingham crime solicitor
Nottingham Magistrates’ Court

Lauren’s client was an elderly gentleman who was said to have been visiting shops with his trousers open, thus exposing himself.  The police and prosecution had apparently been in no hurry to bring the matter to court.  The offence dated back to the summer of 2015, and proceedings were not commenced by summons until the following June.

Our client presented as vulnerable.  He suffered from both mental illness and learning disabilities.  Representations were made on several occasions that it was not in the public interest for the prosecution to continue, but they fell on deaf ears.

This failure to heed these representations was all the more unfortunate when Lauren prepared the case for trial following service of all of the evidence.  Detailed legal research led to a concern that the evidence even taken at its highest could not prove the case.

Lauren’s client was said to have gone into two shops, one after the other. The Crown relied on this to show it was not an “accident”.  He was said to have been told to ‘put it away’ in one shop before going into the second shop still exposed.

Delay Causes Prosecution Problems

It was at this stage, however, that the delay created by the police in investigating the matter created problems for the prosecution.  The witness in the first show was unable to give the date the incident occurred, or even the day of the week.  At most she could say that it had happened in August.

The police had failed to hold any form of identification procedure, so witnesses were not given the opportunity to say whether Lauren’s client was the man seen with his trousers undone.

The lack of evidence to show that our client had been warned of his conduct immediately before a visit to a second shop significantly undermined the a suggestion that his behaviour was deliberate.  The fact that there were only two shop workers in the second shop was arguably insufficient to show a ‘public’ nuisance.

Renewed Representations

Unfortunately the health of Lauren’s client deteriorated over the course of the proceedings.  This led to the need for a psychiatric report to be obtained.  As an alternative to that considerable expense to the public purse, Lauren renewed the representations to the prosecution, combining factors relating to the health of her client with the likelihood of a successful outcome due to lack of evidence.  These representations were supplemented by service of a skeleton argument.

Successful Legal Argument

The matter was listed for a case management hearing and the legal argument was dealt with during that hearing as a preliminary point. The District Judge ruled that the prosecution would be unable to establish that it was Lauren’s client in the first shop on the same day, and that the behaviour gave established, as a matter of law, a public nuisance.

The prosecution offered no evidence and the charge against Lauren’s client was dismissed.

Contact Lauren Fisher

Cases alleging public nuisance may be rare, but Nottingham criminal solicitor advocate Lauren Fisher will show the same level of care whatever the allegation that you face.

If you are due to be interviewed by the police or face court proceedings then please telephone Lauren on 0115 9599550 or email her here.

 

 

News

Parole Granted at First Request

Irene Tolley, Head of Prison Law Department, recently represented a client who wished to apply for parole.  He was serving a sentence made up as follows:

  • Attempt murder police office with firearm – 15 year sentence
  • Robbery – 7 years consecutive
  • Robbery – 7 years concurrent

This total sentence of twenty two years meant that Irene’s client remained a Category A prisoner throughout his sentence and had therefore been detained for thirteen years at high security establishments.

prison law solicitors vhs fletchers paroleIrene’s first involvement in his case was to make representations to his Category A status.  Her submissions in relation to this were immediately successful and he was downgraded to Category B in July.

His first parole hearing was heard a less than a month later.  Irene submitted an application for release on her client’s behalf.  Again, these representations were successful and Irene’s client has his release directed in October.

Such a decision was almost unprecedented.  Irene’s client had not spent any time in lower security prisons and had not completed any releases on temporary licence which would have helped assess suitability for release.

Client Doing Very Well

Irene has had contact with one of the Parole Board members since the decision was made.  Irene is pleased to be able to report that her client is doing very well.  He is in regular touch to update her on what he is up to – he has a job, works with both a High Court Judge and a professor in criminology at Cambridge, and travels the country giving presentations about his experiences.

Contact Irene about Parole

prison law parole hearings
Our Prison Law Services

If you or a family member need advice about parole or any other prison law matter then please contact Irene Tolley by telephone on 0115 9599550 or email her here.

She will be able to advise you as to whether legal aid funding remains available or whether you will need to take advantage of our affordable fixed fees.

 

News

Conditional Discharge for Public Disorder

Nottingham criminal solicitor advocate Phil Plant

Nottingham Solicitor Advocate Phil Plant secured a conditional discharge for his client who was originally charged with affray before Nottingham Crown Court.  Two co -accused faced the affray charge and charges of assault occasioning actual bodily harm.  The case was prepared by senior crown litigator Caine Ward.

Late Night Incident in Drink

The incident took place in a fast food restaurant in Nottingham.  Both sides of the incident had been drinking after a night out in the city centre.  Phil’s client was with his parents and his uncle.

In the restaurant words were exchanged with the co-accused.  The CCTV obtained by Phil showed that his client had been involved in the early part of the incident.

conditional discharge at Nottingham Crown Court
Nottingham Crown Court

As a result of his behaviour he was manhandled out of the shop by security staff.

In the meantime a melee broke out involving the co-defendants.   They assaulted our client’s father by punching him.  This led to him being knocked out by one co-accused and then whilst on the floor being stamped on by the other co-accused.

Phil’s client was still being restrained at his point, but made threats towards the co-defendants.

Plea to a Lesser Charge

The Crown accepted a plea from Phil’s client to an offence under s4 Public Order Act.  Phil negotiated this plea on the basis that our client had offered the threats after his father had been knocked out.

In relation to the incident as a whole, thankfully our client’s father made a full recovery.

Conditional Discharge Imposed

Following argument persuasive mitigation from Phil, the Recorder  was prepared to deal with his client separately from the two co-accused, ending the ordeal of court proceedings.  He felt able to take the very unusual step of imposing a 12 month conditional discharge.  If his client is in further trouble during the period of the discharge he can be re-sentenced for the original allegation and any fresh offence.  Otherwise the conviction is ‘spent’.

Contact Us

Nottingham Crown Court litigator Caine Ward

Often the prosecution and court need persuading to look at alleged offence realistically and sympathetically.  As a result you will need a persuasive specialist advocate.  If you wish to instruct us or seek initial advice then please telephone Phil or Caine on 0115 9599550 or email them here.

News

Sexual Activity with a Child Sentence

Nottingham criminal solicitor advocate Phil Plant

Nottingham solicitor advocate Phil Plant recently dealt with a serious case involving sexual activity with a child that required a sensitive presentation of mitigation to secure a just sentence for his client.  The preparation undertaken by senior crown court litigator Sarah Lees-Collier, including the request for a psychologist report, assisted greatly.

Sexual Activity with a Child

Phil’s female client had pleaded guilty to four offences of sexual activity with a child.  She had had a relationship with a teenage boy involving sexual contact.

sexual activity with a child
Nottingham Crown Court

The relationship had come to the attention of the boy’s mother.  She had contacted Phil’s client and told her of her son’s age.  She was instructed to end the relationship.  This advice was ignored and the relationship continued and moved to a sexual phase.

The boy had provided the police with a detailed victim impact statement describing how he felt that he had been made to grow up too fast.

Our Client was Vulnerable

In turn, Phil’s client presented as very vulnerable.  She suffered from learning impairment and a lack of social awareness.  She had suffered bullying at school and that had led to difficulties for her in forming peer to peer relationships.

In the view of her parents, and confirmed by a psychologist, she was less emotionally mature than her 15 year old sister.  In addition she had been diagnosed with epilepsy that on occasions left her with slurred speech.

Suspended Sentence Imposed

Phil had to approach the case with sensitivity.  The judge accepted that the offending fell within a sentencing bracket that had a starting point of 12 months for at least two of the offences.  The judge as persuaded, however, that taking into account all the personal mitigation a 16 month prison sentence could properly be suspended for 24 months.

Contact Us

If you face a serious case such as sexual activity with a child then you will need your case preparing and presenting by experienced lawyers with a view to securing the best outcome for you.  If you wish to contact Phil or Sarah then please telephone them on 0115 9599550 or email them 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

prohibited item
Northampton Crown Court

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.

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

disqualified driving trial success
Nottingham Magistrates’ Court

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

Special Reasons Avoid Drink Drive Ban

Mansfield crime solicitor Melanie Hoffman successfully argued special reasons so that her client did not receive a penalty or disqualification despite driving while over the legal limit.

Facts of the Case

Mel’s client had driven to his local pub to enjoy an evening with a friend.  This was a regular arrangement and he had every intention of walking home.

Instead of having a pleasant evening, he and his friend were assaulted in the pub by a group of strangers who entered the pub shortly before closing time.  They were heavily in drink and intent on causing further trouble and threats were made.

Upon leaving the pub, Mel’s client and his friend were again confronted by members of this group, who were by now brandishing tools as weapons.  He and his friend sought sanctuary in the works van, only for this to come under attack.

Some of  the group were able to open the passenger side door with a view to pulling the passenger from the van.  Mel’s client decided that despite having drunk alcohol, his only option was to drive the van off the pub car park.  He genuinely feared for his own and his friend’s safety.

Once on the road the van was pursued by the group who were running after the group and also going to vehicles.  As a result, our client had no alternative but to continued to drive in the direction of the local police station.  Whilst doing so  he called the police via his hands free kit to explain the situation.  The police station was unmanned so that the he needed to continue to drive,  ensuring that he kept in constant contact with the Police as he did so.

Eventually the pursuit came to an end and he was able to pull over and park the van,  knowing that the Police were in attendance to assist. The Police chose to carry out a breath test, which the Defendant failed. He was ultimately charged with a drink drive offence, despite what might have amounted to compelling public interest reasons to the contrary.

Special Reasons Identified

Special Reasons Drink Drive Mansfield
Mansfield Magistrates’ Court

Upon taking instructions from her client, Mel correctly advised him that a plea of guilty would have to be entered as he had driven on a public road whilst over the legal limit to do.  The Crown would not consider withdrawing proceedings.   He would be able, however, to put a special reasons argument before the court to seek to avoid punishment and a driving disqualification that would normally follow such a plea.

He would argue that he had only driven because he genuinely feared for the safety of himself and his friend, and a sober individual would have done the same in these circumstances.

To ensure that her client placed the best argument before the Magistrates, Mel:

  • took detailed statements from the friend and pub licensee
  • ensured that this evidence was agreed by the prosecution
  • played the 999 call made by her client to the court

At the court hearing, Mel’s client gave evidence on his own behalf, and by the conclusion of the case there could be no doubt that the facts were as he described.

The Magistrates found that special reasons did apply in this case.  He received an absolute discharge and no driving disqualification. There was no endorsement of the matter on his driving record and he did not have to pay any prosecution costs.

Contact Melanie Hoffman

It may be that if you are arrested for drinking and driving then you are interviewed by the police.  If so, it is vital that you seek our free and independent legal advice at that stage to make sure that you provide the detail that might provide you with a defence or special reasons to avoid a disqualification.

There are a number of other reasons why you should choose to instruct us at the police station.  They can be found here.

There are a limited number of special reasons that can be put forward to avoid a driving disqualification for a drink drive offence, so if we haven’t been at the police station you will want to instruct us for court proceedings.  We will always advise you about your entitlement to criminal legal aid for Magistrates’ Court representation.

Mel is currently on maternity leave, but if you are being investigated or face court proceedings then please contact her colleagues Tim Haines or Emma Cornel on 01623 675816 or use the contact form below:

Contact

News

Police Assault – Not Guilty Verdict

Nottingham crime solicitor Louise Wright was recently instructed in a case alleging police assault at Nottingham Magistrates’ Court. After a full day of trial her client was found not guilty after careful application of the relevant law.

Alleged Police Assault

Police were called to an alleged domestic disturbance.  Upon arrival, a female is standing outside the  address with her children.  She stated that her ex-partner was inside the address, refusing to leave.  The police officers entered and spoke with the male who they claimed refused to leave the property.

police assault nottingham criminal solicitor
Nottingham Magistrates’ Court

The prosecution’s case was that our client was arrested for a breach of the peace.  He was said to have been initially compliant but upon being taken to the police car he began to resist.  This resulted in CS spray being used and her client being placed in leg restraints.

The officer sustained a cut to her hand during the incident.  As a result our client was further arrested for assaulting the officer in the execution of her duty.

Two Part Defence

The client’s defence had two parts:

  • that the officer had not arrested our client or explained why he was being taken against his will
  • that an arrest for breach of peace will only be lawful if the threat of the breach is imminent.

Louise argued that as the concept of a breach of the peace was loosely defined, the powers afforded to those who intend to stop or prevent a breach should be closely scrutinised by the courts to ensure that there has been no undue interference with respect of Article 5 rights.

The magistrates were referred to the leading authority of R v Howell [1982].  This defined what a breach of the peace was. Agitated or excited behaviour, not involving any injury, nor any verbal threat, cannot be a breach of the peace.

A more recent case of Hawkes v DPP [2006]  decided that language and an abusive aggressive manner might justify an arrest on the ground of an apprehended breach of the peace.  To be arrested for an actual breach of the peace there had to be an incident of violence. As a result, as in Louise’s case, verbal abuse and a refusal to get into the police car did not amount to such an incident.

Closing Speech

At the conclusion of the case, Louise argued before the Magistrates that there had been no breach of the peace.  As a result the officers did not have a power if arrest.  As a result, their purported arrest was unlawful and Louise’s client’s behaviour, by contrast, was both lawful and reasonable.  Additionally, there were inconsistencies in the police evidence that did not assist the prosecution’s case.

Having considered the evidence and the submissions the Magistrates found Louise’s client not guilty of the charge of police assault.  Her client felt that in all of the circumstances he had been wronged, and as a result he was extremely appreciative that Louise had undertaken the detailed analysis of the evidence and the issues that allowed the right verdict.

Contact Louise Wright

If you have a case that involves the need to challenge police evidence, such as police assault, then please contact Louise Wright on 0115 9599550 or email her here.