Tag Archives: trial

News

Charge of supply of psychoactive substance dismissed

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

Supply of a psychoactive substance?

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

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

Free and independent legal advice in police interview

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

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

Proceedings at Nottingham Magistrates’ Court

psychoative substance nottingham solicitor
Nottingham Magistrates’ Court

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

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

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

Submission of no case to answer

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

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

He highlighted the following:

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

Case dismissed

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

Instruct a criminal solicitor in Nottingham

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

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

psychoative substance supply magistrates trial
Notingham duty solicitor Jameel Malick

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

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

 

News

Rape Juries Reach Guilty Verdicts Before Deliberation

Majority of rape case juries reach guilty verdict before deliberation

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

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

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

Mock rape trials used in study

 

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

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

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

Demographic and  personal attitudes key

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

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

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

 

Uncategorized

Hearsay Evidence – can the prosecution proceed without a witness in domestic violence cases?

Our solicitors are often instructed in cases involving allegations of domestic violence.  The complainants in some of these cases do not support the prosecution.  This lack of support was indicated at a very early stage.  None of the witnesses made statements when the police were investigating the allegations.  The prosecution try to rely on hearsay res gestae evidence.

As a result, the prosecution has sought to rely entirely on hearsay evidence.  In particular, the res gestae exception as preserved by Section 11(4) Criminal Justice Act 2003 has been relied upon.

The test for admitting res gestae evidence

Evidence amounts to res gestae when “the statement was made by a person so emotionally overpowered by an event that the possibility of concoction or distortion can be disregarded”.

This principle has been developed in subsequent case law.  As a result the following points have been established which the court should consider in deciding whether to allow a Prosecution application to admit the evidence:

  • Ultimately, the Court has to determine whether the possibility of concoction or distortion can be disregarded;
  • The court will need to look at the particular circumstances in which the relevant statement has been made.
  • It must be satisfied that that the event was so unusual, startling or dramatic that it was the predominant thought of the witness.
  • Their statement was an instinctive reaction so there was no real opportunity for reasoned reflection.
  • The statement must be closely associated with the relevant event.  The court must be sure that the event was still operating to effect the mind of the witness when the statement was made.
  • Does the case have particularly features which relate directly to the possibility of concoction or distortion.  This might include evidence of fabrication. The court must be satisfied that there was no such possibility of concoction or distortion.

Any issues such as mistakes in the account given are not matters relevant to admissibility of the evidence but factors the court will consider in deciding what weight to give to such evidence.

There is clear case law that the prosecution should not make an application to admit res gestae to circumvent other statutory hearsay provisions.

What evidential matters will the court look at?

The issue of the timing of the statement will be key to any application.  These will include:

  • when the victim called the police
  • how soon after the incident the victim gave the account said to be res gestae

These are not the only factors that the Court should consider however.   The Court will also need to look at:

  • whether there is any supporting evidence for example visible injuries
  • the victim’s demeanour when first witnesses attend
  • their subsequent words and behaviour
  • is there an accurate transcription of recorded evidence such as 999 calls, police bodycam footage or CCTV evidence
  • where the victim has made more than one statement, the accuracy and consistency of those statements will need careful consideration
  • if there has been more than one telephone call or electronic communication have been made by the same person?

Ultimately each case has to be considered on its own facts.

Should the prosecution give notice of an application?

The Criminal Procedure Rules do not require the prosecution to give notice of an application to admit hearsay evidence under the res gestae principles.  Any notice given very much depends on the prosecutor dealing with the particular case.  Where an application is made in advance and refused the case will end at that stage unless there is other admissible evidence to secure a conviction.

Even where a court admits res gestae evidence it must still evaluate that evidence in the usual way.  The prosecution must still proved its case to the required standard.

Exclusion of hearsay evidence under section 78 PACE 1984

A defendant has an opportunity to apply to exclude evidence of res gestae.  If a court has admitted the evidence, application can be made under Section 78 of Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.  The court has a discretion to exclude evidence which would otherwise be admissible.

For example, there may be cases where the prosecution have failed to take sufficient steps to ensure a witness’s attendance at court. The prosecution might have purported to tender the prosecution to the defence.  This means that the defendant would be at liberty to call the witness.

Circumstances like these might permit a persuasive argument that the defendant has been denied an opportunity to test the evidence through cross examination of the witness.

An application to admit hearsay evidence should be an application of last resort.  In many cases the prosecution will attempt such an application when a witness might be available to give evidence as to the facts.

In the case of R v Andrews it was stated that a court should “strongly deprecate any attempt in criminal prosecutions to use the doctrine [of res gestae]as a device to avoid calling, when he is available, the maker of the statement”.

Contact a specialist criminal defence solicitor

On behalf of a defendant, a solicitor must make sure that the prosecution does not use a res gestae application to place otherwise inadmissible hearsay evidence before the court.  Solicitors must ensure that the statutory and procedural safeguards are used to ensure a defendant’s right to a fair trial.

A defendant will wish to instruct a solicitor who is alive to all of the issues relating to this evidence and prepared for an argument at short notice against the admissibility of re gestae.

If you face allegations before the court where the decisive evidence is that of an absent witness then contact your nearest office to speak to a specialist criminal defence solicitor.  Alternatively you can use the form below.

Legal aid will often be available to ensure that the defence of your case will be free of charge to you.

Contact

News

Res Gestae evidence – does the prosecution need a complainant?

res gestae derby legal aid solicitor vhs fletchers
Derby criminal law specialist John Young

Derby criminal lawyer John Young has been instructed in cases involving allegations of domestic violence.  The complainants in the cases have not supported the prosecution.  This was indicated at a very early stage.  None of the witnesses made statements when the police were investigating the allegations.  The prosecution try to rely on res gestae evidence.

As a result, the prosecution has sought to rely entirely on hearsay evidence.  In particular, the res gestae exception as preserved by Section 11(4) Criminal Justice Act 2003 has been relied upon.

The test for admitting res gestae evidence

Evidence amounts to res gestae when “the statement was made by a person so emotionally overpowered by an event that the possibility of concoction or distortion can be disregarded”.

This principle has been developed in subsequent case law.  As a result the following points have been established which the court should consider in deciding whether to allow a Prosecution application to admit the evidence:

  • Ultimately, the Court has to determine whether the possibility of concoction or distortion can be disregarded;
  • The court will need to look at the particular circumstances in which the relevant statement has been made.
  • It must be satisfied that that the event was so unusual, startling or dramatic that it was the predominant thought of the witness. Their statement was an instinctive reaction so there was no real opportunity for reasoned reflection.
  • The statement must be closely associated with the relevant event.  The court must be sure that the event was still operating to effect the mind of the witness when the statement was made.
  • Does the case have particularly features which relate directly to the possibility of concoction or distortion.  This might include evidence of fabrication. The court must be satisfied that there was no such possibility of concoction or distortion.

Any issues such as mistakes in the account given are not matters relevant to admissibility of the evidence but factors the court will consider in deciding what weight to give to such evidence.

There is clear case law that the prosecution should not make an application to admit res gestae to circumvent other statutory hearsay provisions.

What evidential matters will the court look at?

The issue of the timing of the statement will be key to any application.  These will include

  • when the victim called the police
  • how soon after the incident the victim gave the account said to be res gestae

These are not the only factors that the Court should consider however.   The Court will also need to look at

  • whether there is any supporting evidence for example visible injuries
  • the victim’s demeanour when first witnesses attend
  • their subsequent words and behaviour
  • is there an accurate transcription of recorded evidence such as 999 calls, police bodycam footage or CCTV evidence
  • where the victim has made more than one statement, the accuracy and consistency of those statements will need careful consideration
  • If there has been more than one telephone call or electronic communication have been made by the same person?

Ultimately each case has to be considered on its own facts.

Should the prosecution give notice of an application?

The Criminal Procedure Rules do not require the prosecution to give notice of an application to admit hearsay evidence under the res gestae principles.  Any notice given very much depends on the prosecutor dealing with the particular case.  Where an application is made in advance and refused the case will end at that stage unless there is other admissible evidence to secure a conviction.

Even where a court admits res gestae evidence it must still evaluate that evidence in the usual way.  The prosecution must still proved its case to the required standard.

Exclusion of evidence under section 78 PACE 1984

A defendant has an opportunity to apply to exclude evidence of res gestae.  If a court has admitted the evidence, application can be made under Section 78 of Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.  The court has a discretion to exclude evidence which would otherwise be admissible.

For example, there may be cases where the prosecution have failed to take sufficient steps to ensure a witness’s attendance at court. The prosecution might have purported to tender the prosecution to the defence.  This means that the defendant would be at liberty to call the witness.

Circumstances like these might permit a persuasive argument that the defendant has been denied an opportunity to test the evidence through cross examination of the witness.

An application to admit hearsay evidence should be an application of last resort.  In many cases the prosecution will attempt such an application when a witness might be available to give evidence as to the facts.

In the case of R v Andrews it was stated that a court should “strongly deprecate any attempt in criminal prosecutions to use the doctrine [of res gestae]as a device to avoid calling, when he is available, the maker of the statement”.

Contact a specialist criminal defence solicitor

On behalf of a defendant, a solicitor must make sure that the prosecution does not use a res gestae application to place otherwise inadmissible hearsay evidence before the court.  Solicitors must ensure that the statutory and procedural safeguards are used to ensure a defendant’s right to a fair trial.

A defendant will wish to instruct a solicitor who is alive to all of the issues relating to this evidence and prepared for an argument at short notice against the admissibility of re gestae.

If you face allegations before the court where the decisive evidence res gestae hearsay evidenceis that of an absent witness then contact your nearest office to speak to a specialist criminal defence solicitor.  Alternatively you can use the form below.

Legal aid will often be available to ensure that the defence of your case will be free of charge to you.

Contact

 

News

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Contact a Mansfield criminal legal aid solicitor

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

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

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

criminal legal aid mansfield
Mansfield criminal legal aid solicitor Tim Haines

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

Contact

 

News

Lack of intention to permanently deprive leads to not guilty verdict

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

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

Lack of Intention to Permanently Deprive

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

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

Defence of duress considered

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

Shop theft trial

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

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

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

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

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

Not Guilty Verdict

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

Contact Nottingham crime solicitor Louise Wright

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

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

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

Contact

News

Chesterfield Criminal Solicitor – No Case to Answer

Chesterfield criminal Solicitor David Gittins recently used all of his court experience to successfully argue at trial that there was no case for his client to answer.  This would mean that all charges would be dismissed.  As a result his client would be not guilty of the offences. Previous criminal behaviour need not mean that a person is inevitably guilty of new offences.

The Allegation

David’s client had been arrested and charged with an allegation of criminal damage. The background was one of anti-social behaviour directed towards a neighbour.  A restraining order had been put in place as a result.

The complainant, as well as having the protection of a court order, had also put up CCTV .  This was specifically to cover a passageway between the two properties.

The allegation was that David’s client had damaged this camera.  Although the damage was not caught on the camera, and there were no eye-witnesses, the prosecution had chosen to bring the case to court.  The case was brought on the basis of our client’s poor behaviour in the past and because he was in the area at the time the camera was damaged.

Although David’s client had denied the offence in police interview, he appeared to accept causing damage by catching himself on some low hanging wires in the dark.  He himself had called the police the following day to give that account.

The Trial

David had seen his client to take instructions and provide advice on on several occasions before the trial date.  David had also taken the time to visit the property.  He took photographs to allow the Magistrates to fully understand the scene.

These instructions allowed David to develop a case plan ensuring that he knew what evidence was required from the witness to secure an acquittal for his client.

At trial the owner of the CCTV attended and gave evidence about the its location and how and when it was fixed to the wall.  During his evidence the witness accepted “it was possible” that some of the wires may have dropped. David knew this answer was key. Previously in discussions with the prosecution,  it was claimed that there were no such wires.

The witness gave evidence for the prosecution for over 30 mins. David then questioned the witness himself, although he chose to only a small number of questions.  This questioning only lasted three minutes.

After the prosecution case had finished, David made an application that the case ought to be dismissed.  This was because there was simply no evidence upon which his client could be convicted.  The prosecution witness had confirmed what his client had said about loose wires.  There was no eye witness testimony to the incident.  As a result there was no evidence to challenge his account.

The Magistrates retired and returned a short while later accepting David’s argument and dismissing the case.

His  client was delighted as he was subject to a Suspended Sentence Order so any conviction would have almost certainly resulted in a prison sentence.

Criminal legal aid in the Magistrates’ Court 

Chesterfield criminal solicitor david gittinsLegal aid is available for advice and representation before the Magistrates’ Court.  It is dependent upon our clients satisfying the legal aid agency of the merits of their cases and that they qualify on their means.

In this case, David’s client had the benefit of legal aid which means that his representation was free of charge to our client.

Instruct a Chesterfield criminal solicitor

criminal damage not guilty verdict
Chesterfield partner and crime solicitor David Gittins

Whether you find yourself under investigation by the police, or facing proceedings before the Magistrates’ or Crown Court, you will want to instruct a specialist Chesterfield criminal solicitor to present and argue your case.  We will give you a clear idea of what needs to be achieved and how it can be will benefit you.

There are many reasons to take advantage of our free and independent legal advice in police interview.  You can read about those here.

If you wish to instruct Chesterfield criminal solicitor David then please telephone him on 01246 387999 or contact him using the form below.  Details of your nearest office can be found here.

Contact

News

Tractor driver avoids conviction for dangerous driving

Chesterfield Crime Solicitor Kevin Tomlinson was recently instructed in an unusual case of dangerous driving.  His client was alleged to have a driven a tractor dangerously.  If convicted, Kevin’s client stood to lose not only his good name but also his licence for a minimum of twelve months.

The allegation of dangerous driving

Kevin’s client, aged 17, had been assisting on a family farm.  He drove a tractor on a public highway moving bales of hay.   He was driving along a narrow country lane when another vehicle approached from the other direction.  A collision occurred causing minor damage to the car.  The tractor tipped over onto  its side, coming to rest on a dry stone wall.

The police were called to the scene because of the accident.  Kevin’s client was eventually summonsed to court for dangerous driving.

Our client denied the offence stating that he had not been driving at speed as alleged.  In fact, this was simply an accident due to the nature of the road.  The hedges were overgrown so the view of both drivers was restricted. Kevin advised his client that a not guilty plea ought to be entered and the case was adjourned for trial in the Magistrates’ Court.

Expert witness instructed

In order to prepare for the trial Kevin visited the location of the accident.  As a result he instructed an expert to visit the scene in order to give his opinion as to the manner of driving.  This would be based upon the road layout and how the vehicles ended up after the accident.  Following this detailed recreation of the scene the expert felt the standard of driving was not dangerous.   He agreed with our client’s view of the incident.

This report allowed Kevin to make detailed submissions to the Crown Prosecution Service.  He invited them to reconsider the case against his client.  This was because the evidence did not support a charge of dangerous driving.

Although Kevin had to chase the prosecution for an answer, eventually a decision was made that there was a more suitable charge.  This was the little known offence of being in control of a vehicle whilst being unable to see the entire road ahead.

This was a suitable charge because the hydraulic front loader attachment used to transport the hay bales, when in the correct position for use on the road, created a blind spot.  This problem was aggravated by the driving conditions on this particular road.

The new offence was a far less serious allegation than dangerous driving.  It carried a financial penalty and penalty points .  Kevin’s client pleaded guilty on a very limited basis that had been agreed by the prosecution.  It was accepted by the court.

Absolute discharge ordered

At the sentencing hearing Kevin addressed the Magistrates about the case including personal mitigation of his client. Upon hearing all of this information the court imposed an Absolute Discharge.  This meant that the court considered that no punishment was needed.  The court also ordered that no Prosecution costs were to be paid.

The Court had to impose 3 penalty points for the offence which was the minimum that could be imposed.  For obvious reasons Kevin’s client was delighted with both the outcome and the fact that the case was finally over.

Kevin’s persuasive advocacy skills and tenacious attitude in securing all relevant evidence to assist his client’s case meant an exceptional outcome for his Client.  It is clear that he explored every line of enquiry to ensure a result that favoured his client.

Criminal legal aid in the Magistrates’ Court

Our client satisfied both the merits and means test for legal aid which means that the advice and representation provided by Kevin was free of charge to him.  The legal aid also paid the costs of instructing the expert witness in the case.

We will always provide you with full advice as to how best to fund your case, including the availability of legal aid.

Contact a Chesterfield Motoring Solicitor

chesterfield motoring law solicitor kevin tomlinson dangerous driving
Chesterfield Crime Solicitor Kevin Tomlinson

If you require the advice and representation of an expert motoring solicitor then please contact Kevin at our Chesterfield office on 01246 283000 or email him here.  Details of our Chesterfield Office can be found here.

Kevin can provide you with detailed and affordable advice as to whether you are able to challenge the prosecution evidence relating to your road traffic offence, or how you are likely to be sentenced following a guilty plea.

News

Lack of identification evidence leads to not guilty verdict

Nottingham crime solicitor Lauren Fisher represented her client at Nottingham Magistrates’ Court who was charged with assault. After she properly identified that the issue in the case was identification evidence, the prosecution did not manage to secure the evidence that her client was responsible  in time for trial.  Not guilty verdicts followed.

The allegation

A member of the public had seen two males being assaulted so went to their aid.  Both males are drunk and in company with a female.  One of the males then becomes aggressive and pushes the female before attempting to hit the person who had been helping them.

Although the male walks away with the female he is followed by the member of the public.  He is then seen to kick the female and swing her around by her bag.  He calls the police because of his concerns.

When the police arrive, no complaint is made by the female.  Lauren’s client is in a group of three males by this time.  He is spoken to by the police and taken home, but then received a notification that he had to attend court.

No identification evidence…

Lauren advises him on the statements received.  There is not a statement from anybody identifying him as the person who either swung for the member of the public or kicked the female.  He enters not guilty pleas.  Lauren makes it clear on the case management form that identification will be the issue in the case.

…and still no identification evidence

Despite this, the prosecution serve no additional evidence until the morning of trial.  This is in an additional statement from the eye witness stating that he had pointed out the male to the police.  There was, however, no corresponding statement from the police officer confirming that if was Lauren’s client who was identified.

The prosecutor had to therefore make an application to adjourn the trial to try and put right this evidential problem.  The was opposed by Lauren, bearing in mind the time the Crown had had to secure any evidence.  The Magistrates’ decided that it was not in the interests of justice to grant the prosecution the adjournment.  As a result the prosecution had no alternative but to offer no evidence.  The charges were dismissed and Lauren’s client was found not guilty.

Contact a Nottingham Criminal Law Solicitor

identification evidence nottingham crime solicitor
Nottingham crime solicitor Lauren Fisher

Whether you face a police investigation or Magistrates’ or Crown Court proceedings you will wish to instruct a specialist criminal defence lawyer with an eye for detail who will fight your case.  This can be particularly important in cases involving identification evidence.  The identification might be by eye witnesses, from CCTV or from forensic evidence so the legal approach will be different in each case.

If you wish to instruct Lauren Fisher then please telephone her on 0115 9599550 or use the contact form below.  Alternatively, you can find you nearest office here.

Contact

News

Adjournment refused, not guilty verdict follows

nottingham criminal defence solicitor adjournment
Nottingham Magistrates’ Court

Nottingham crime solicitor Lauren Fisher recently represented a client at a Magistrates’ Court trial.  The case was an emotive one because it was alleged that he had assaulted his young son by dragging him from one room to another.

Police attended at the address later in the day following a report by the  mother that Lauren’s client was preventing her from leaving the address.  This informs police that she saw our client drag the child by his feet earlier in the day.  The child confirmed this at the time and there was a visible injury.

Young witness support defence account

The child provided a video statement.  Although the child was originally a witness for the prosecution, a review of the video evidence showed that the account given was inconsistent with that of the adult witness.

This final account supported what Lauren’s client said about the incident – the child had been playing with a knife so our client intervened, took the knife and dragged the child away by the hand.  As a result there was no unlawful assault.

Lauren took the unusual step of serving this interview on the prosecution so that she could invite the Crown to agree the evidence.  As an alternative a hearsay application was served because nobody with care of the child was prepared to allow the child to come to court.  Lauren shared the view that the child should not need to be present at court.

Prosecution failure to comply with duty of disclosure

The day before the trial the prosecution had the case listed for a Case Management Hearing.  The Crown had failed to comply with its duty of disclosure.  Agreement is sought to adjourn the trial in the absence of Magistrates but Lauren did not agree.  Her client did not wish further delay in the case so the case was adjourned to the trial date.

On the morning of the trial the prosecution still do not have the information it needed so a further application to adjourn is made.  Lauren insisted that the prosecution present a proper chronology of how the Crown had dealt with disclosure.

When the Crown presented the chronology it was clear that the reviewing lawyer had requested information that undermined the credibility of the remaining witness.  The lawyer had made the request time and again but it had been ignored by the police.

Eventually the police confirmed that there was such information but still did not pass it to the prosecution but it was not available for the trial.

Prosecution adjournment opposed

The prosecution adjournment was sought on the basis of the public interest in a charge of this nature being heard properly.  Lauren opposed the adjournment on the following grounds:

  • there was the likelihood from the outset that the witness was not telling the truth
  • the child involved confirmed there had been no offence committed
  • the proceedings were causing problems for her client before the family court
  • summary justice should mean speedy justice so the prosecution and police should not be allowed to ignore the rules

A not guilty verdict was recorded

The District Judge considered the representations and refused the adjournment request.  As a result the prosecution were not in a position to proceed and offered no evidence.  A not guilty verdict was entered.

Instruct a criminal law specialist

nottingham criminal defence lawyer adjournment
Nottingham crime solicitor Lauren Fisher

Whether you face police investigation, Magistrates’ Court trial or Crown Court proceedings you will want to instruct a specialist in criminal law who will spend their time trying to secure the best result for you.

If you wish to instruct Nottingham criminal defence solicitor Lauren Fisher then you can telephone her on 0115 9599550 or contact her using the form below.

Contact