Tag Archives: trial

News

Historic Allegations Successfully Challenged

Senior Crown Court litigator Laura Clarson was instructed by a client facing historic allegations of serious sexual offences.  Counsel Vanessa Marshall of 7 Bedford Row chambers was instructed.

Historic Allegations

Laura’s  client had first arrested in 2013, aged 69,  for alleged sexual offences spanning a period of approximately 18 years from 1995 in relation to a single complainant.  The police and prosecution had initially decided that there was insufficient evidence to proceed as they had also gathered evidence in support of Laura’s clients denials.

A second complainant then made sexual allegations, albeit of quite a different nature, which led Laura’s client being charged with later offences.  A decision was then made that, absent any additional evidence, her client would be charged with the original allegations as well.

As a result of police enquiries, further historical allegations were made by another three complainants.  These allegations dated back as far as 1972.

Prosecution Failure to Disclose

historic allegations criminal solicitor
Crown Court Litigator Laura Clarson

All matters for the five complainants were tied into a single indictment and listed for trial before Derby Crown Court.  It became clear during the trial that the Crown had failed to disclose a substantial amount of material relevant to the case that had the potential to assist in our client’s defence.

It was impossible to consider properly this unused material so there was no alternative but for the trial to be adjourned to start afresh nine months later.

In the meantime, the prosecution chose to offer no evidence in relation to all of the allegations apart from those arising from the original investigation which had not been prosecuted.

Detailed Cross Examination on ‘Unused Material’

In readiness, counsel Vanessa Marshall  examined the additional material comprising years of medical, social services, school and counselling records.  This meant that lengthy cross examination of the complainant was needed.  This in turn led to a review of the case by the prosecution after this evidence had been challenged.

Not Guilty Verdicts on all Charges

historic allegations crime solicitor
The letter to Laura

The prosecution then chose to offer no further evidence against Laura’s client, who was by now aged 73, and invite not guilty verdicts.  The entire process had taken three years, during which time he had suffered ill health throughout.

Laura’s client took the time to write a letter thanking her for all that she had done and the manner in which he had been treated.

Contact Laura Clarson

Defending historic allegations is always difficult, but this case demonstrates that in instructing Laura Clarson you will know that your case is being given the time and attention that it needs.

Please telephone Laura on 0115 9599550.

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

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.

News

On Trial for Serious Sexual Offence

Senior Crown Court Litigator Lisa Sawyer recently instructed Barrister Vanessa Marshall of 7 Bedford Row chambers.  The allegation of a serious sexual offence, and Lisa’s client was one of two defendant’s on trial.

Complainant Gave a Detailed Account

The prosecution case was that the complainant had been targeted in a nightclub by both defendants as she was drunk and vulnerable.  In evidence the complainant alleged that she only had a partial memory of leaving the club and what happened afterwards.  She maintained that she was not in control of her actions or in a position to consent to sexual contact owing to her intoxication.

The complainant was able to give the location of the flat that she had been taken to.   The co-accused was arrested and he gave the name of Lisa’s client.  Their mobile phones were seized and interrogated.  Photographs of the complainants underwear were recovered and a video footage of Lisa’s client having sex with the complainant who seemed to be asleep and wasn’t participating.  Further photos were found that did not show either defendant in a good light.  Further interrogation of the phones showed that the defendants were part of a Whatsapp group that publicised their sexual encounters and kept count.

Client Accepted Poor Conduct but not Rape

Lisa’s client and co-accused accepted being the two men involved, and accepted sexual activity in the night club.  They maintained that the complainant was not as intoxicated as she latter alleged.  A request for disclosure of CCTV from

outside the club supported this account.  Both men accepted having intercourse with the complainant.  They accept that there conduct in relation to the photos, filming and messages was distasteful and showed a lack of respect, they had not raped the complainant.  Detail they they could provide of the complainants personal circumstances could only have come from conversation with her, suggesting she was sober.

Phone Evidence Supported the Defence

Our client argued that the complainant arose out of regret after the fact.   There was evidence to show that she had spoken to a friend in the taxi back to her mothers, but had deleted that call record from her phone before the police could seize it.  She gave different accounts as to her recollection in her interviews and in her first description of events to those concerned in the investigation.

Although a trial for a sexual offence should be heard quickly, proceedings were prolonged.  The first trial concluded with a hung jury.  There was a second trial in December 2016 that resulted in both defendant’s being acquitted.

Client had Legal Aid for Sexual Offence Trial

The case had a number of complexities that counsel and Lisa identified.  With the benefit of legal aid, Lisa was able to:

  • Instruct a medical expert to comment on injuries seen to the complainant
  • A telecommunications expert who provided crucial evidence as to deleted calls and commentary on call history between her client and the complaiant
  • Instruct expert counsel to represent her client

Exemplary Character

Although counsel was from London chambers, Lisa knew that she would spend as much time as preparation of the case would entail.  Significant time was spent with our client in conference.  Lisa drafted a comprehensive defence statement dealing with every aspect of her client’s defence so that he could not be criticised at trial.  Her client’s instructions were eight pages long.  Lisa was able to secure a number of references that demonstrated her client’s exemplary character away from these proceedings.

Counsel fought extremely hard on behalf of Lisa’s client to secure this result and avoid a conviction and sentence that would have been measured in years.

Contact Lisa Sawyer

sexual offence criminal defence
Senior Crown Court Litigator Lisa Sawyer

Whatever the charge you face before the Crown Court, be it a sexual offence or other allegation, Lisa will be able to provide you with expert specialist legal advice, instruct the best advocates and secure any expert evidence necessary to assist you case.  Please telephone her on 0115 9599550 or email her here.

 

News

Police BodyCam Footage Key in Trial

police bodycam
Chesterfield partner and crime solicitor David Gittins

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

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

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

Client of Good Character

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

The Allegation

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

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

Self-Defence Argument

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

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

Crucial Police BodyCam Footage

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

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

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

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

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

Closing Speech

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

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

Contact Us

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

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

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

News

Expert Firearms Team at Wolverhampton Court

Senior Crown Court litigator Laura Clarson was responsible for the preparation of a case before Wolverhampton Crown Court recently.  She assembled an expert firearms team of barrister and witness. Her client was acquitted by a unanimous jury verdict following a trial lasting eight days.

Expert Firearms Team

Counsel Nick Doherty from Brudenell Chambers instructed to represent our client. He has a particular specialism in firearms law so was a perfect choice.  Laura also instructed firearms expert David Dyson to comment on the evidence as to whether live or blank ammunition was used.

Laura’s client had a licence to hold firearms.  He was charged with possession of a firearm with intent to cause fear of unlawful violence.  It was said that he fired live rounds of ammunition in the middle of the street in which he lived.

Bullet casings recovered from the scene together with evidence of an independent witness which supported this. Laura’s client maintained that no live rounds were discharged from the rifle and that he fired a single blank round in order to scare away two males. They were armed with a machete and a samurai sword.  They were threatening him and his sons with those weapons.

As a result, our client claimed that no unlawful violence was threatened.  He was acting in defence of himself and his family.

Mr Dyson, as a leading expert witness in the field of firearms, was called to give evidence as to the type of ammunition recovered. and was able to give independent opinion supportive of our client’s case.

Undisclosed Evidence

Laura had to actively pursue the prosecution for undisclosed evidence.  A witness had given information to the police that was helpful to her client.  This information had not been disclosed by the police because she wanted to remain anonymous.

Counsel was successful in arguing that her statement should be read to the jury in support of our client’s case.

Judge Dismissive of Defence

Despite direction from the judge that was very dismissive of our client’s case, the jury found him not guilty, presumably on the basis that his actions may have been reasonable in all of the circumstances of the case.

After trial, counsel commented that Laura was ‘a credit to the firm really fights for her clients’.

Contact Us

This case came to us through our consultant solicitor Andrew Broome who has a specialist knowledge of firearms law.  If you are charged with a firearms offence then you will need an expert firearms team to give you advice and representation then we will be able to help.

Please contact Laura on 0115 9599550 or Andrew on 0115 9441233.  Alternatively, they can be emailed here.

News

Aggravated Burglary Trial Success

VHS Fletchers were recently instructed to act for two of three defendants appearing before Nottingham Crown Court facing trial for serious allegations of aggravated burglary,  knife-point robbery and kidnapping.   One of our clients also faced an additional serious charge of wounding with intent.

Nottingham Crown Court Trial

The nature of the charges was such that if convicted the defendants would have faced sentences of more than ten years in prison.  They were relieved to be found not guilty of all charges.

The case was prepared for trial by Serena Simpson and Siobhan McGuinness from the firm’s Chesterfield and Derby offices.   Although the case was at Nottingham, these offices were more local to our clients.  One of our clients was represented by one of our team of in-house solicitor advocates William Bennett.  Our second client was represented by experienced counsel Stuart Lody from a local specialist chambers.  William had to take the lead on the advocacy as his client was first on the Indictment.

Aggravated Burglary

The trial ran for eight days.

The central issue in the case became the credibility of three prosecution witnesses who were said to be either victims or witnesses to the offending.

Following well prepared and skillful cross examination William and Stuart established that a number of significant lies had been told by tose witnesses.

Cross-examination of Untruthful Witnesses

The cross-examination was based on a through understanding of the statements in the case as well as the material that the prosecution had chosen not to use.  This was made possible because comprehensive and detailed instructions on all aspects of our clients’ cases had been taken at an early stage to prepare for trial, followed by an active pursuit of relevant unused material.

The cross-examination was able to establish that not only were there significant inconsistencies between the accounts given by the eye witnesses but also that the accounts differed from earlier accounts given by the same witnesses.

The prosecution’s main witness in relation to the knife-point robbery was forced to admit that he had lied to the police and even more worryingly that he had lied on oath to the jury about who was present at the time of the alleged robbery.  This  lead the Judge  to direct the Jury to acquit two of the defendants in relation to that particular charge.

Prosecution Witness Revealed as Drug Dealer

In another interesting development one of the witnesses conceded that the main prosecution witness to the wounding allegation did indeed sell cannabis as had been maintained by our clients throughout, a fact that had been denied by the witness in question.

It was a trial that really emphasised the importance of trial by Jury and the robust testing of evidence during the trial process. Anyone who believes that prosecution witnesses always tell the truth would have had their eyes opened by this case.

There was an enormous amount of pressure on the defendants throughout the case, pressure that only lifted after the Jury returned its verdicts. The firm’s overall approach, however, assisted the defendant’s to withstand the pressure that comes with being accused of crimes that they had not committed.

Instruct VHS Fletchers

If you face allegations, whether aggravated burglary  or  a different charge, it will be important to you.  As a result it is important that you instruct solicitors who will ensure that your best case can be put before the court.  If you wish to discuss a case with William or Siobhan please contact them on 01332 546818.  Our Chesterfield office can be contacted on 01246 387999.  Specific or more detailed enquiries can be made here.

News

Failing to Provide Case Dropped

Nottingham crime solicitor Nick Walsh was recently instructed by a client facing an allegation of failing to provide a specimen of breath for analysis and police assault.  Ultimately Nick persuaded the prosecution not to proceed with the charges.

Medical Defence to Failing to Provide

Nick’s client had a history of mental illness.   The account given by the arresting officers showed that his behaviour was bizarre in the extreme.  From the outset, Nick correctly identified that the relevant issue would be whether, bearing in mind the nature of his illness, he was capable of understanding the request made of him and the likely consequences of a refusal.

A psychiatric report was obtained that expressed the view that our client was very ill during his time in police custody.  The  paramedic who examined him at the police station said that his behaviour was a result of mental illness and not the effect of drink or drugs.

Prosecution Determined to Proceed

Despite this information the prosecution were determined to proceed with the prosecution.  Requests to the prosecution eventually produced the full intoxilyser procedure forms.  From those, it became apparent that the officer conducting the procedure had accepted that Nick’s client had a medical reason for his failing to provide a specimen of breath.  It was he who had gone on to arrange for our client to be medically assessed as to whether he was unfit.

It was this decision that had led to the assessment that concluded he was not affected by alcohol, rather illness.

In the Public Interest?

Nick persisted with his representations that it was not in the public interest to persist with the prosecution.  In any event the prosecution would not be in a position to prove the case.  Eventually, having had the case listed for a case management hearing, the prosecution were persuaded to withdraw the charges.  The prosecution was at an end.

Contact Nick Walsh

If you face an allegation at the police station or Magistrates’ Court then please do not hesitate to contact Nick Walsh on 0115 9599550 or email him here.  You will no doubt benefit from his careful analysis of the issues in your case and his persistence in dealing with the prosecution.

News

Disqualified Driving Trial Success

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

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

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

Disqualified Driving

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

Pro-active Case Management

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

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

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

Crown Failed to Secure Admissable Evidence

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

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

Contact Nick Walsh

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

News

Section 18 GBH Trial at Nottingham – Not Guilty Verdict

Nottingham criminal solicitor advocate Phil Plant

Nottingham solicitor advocate Phil Plant recently represented a client before Nottingham Crown Court who face the serious allegation of inflicting Grievous Bodily Harm with Intent (Section 18 GBH).  After trial, he was found not guilty.

Assault Following False Allegations

Phil’s client was said, along with a co-accused, to have taken part in a brutal revenge attack on the victim following false allegations that he had assaulted a female friend.

The victim had been so badly beaten that was so badly beaten he suffered a displaced fractured of the jaw.  It also led to him suffering  almost total amnesia and his recollection was based on harrowing flashbacks of the incident that continued to haunt him.

Lesser Charge Instead of Section 18 GBH?

Upon conviction, our client could expect a substantial period of imprisonment.  The prosecution had told us that it would accept a plea to the lesser charge of inflicting GBH (Section 20 rather than section 18 GBH).  Phil’s client insisted that he was not involved at all, so chose to have his trial.

The victim asserted that the the complainant named both of the accused as the perpetrators of the attack.  Phil’s client did not accept that he was part of the attack, although he did witness it.

When questioned by Phil the complainant conceded that his client was not the kind of man who would behave in the manner he described, conceding perhaps that it appeared unlikely that his client did indeed take part in the attack.

The other defendant had given given different accounts during the course of the investigation.  At trial he maintained that it was our client who had carried out the assault.

Not Guilty Verdict

Having heard evidence tested through Phil’s expert cross-examination the jury found his client not guilty.  The other accused, separately represented, was convicted of the original offence and received a significant custodial sentence of several years.

Contact Phil Plant

If you wish to instruct Phil to represent you at trial before Nottingham Crown Court then please contact him on 0115 9599550 or email him here.

News

Dangerous Driving Acquittal

Nottingham crime solicitor Graham Heathcote recently had the pleasure of travelling to Northallerton Magistrates’ Court to represent a client for dangerous driving who he has represented at his two previous firms of solicitors.  The client chooses to have Graham represent him, presumably on the basis that he may well be able to work wonders with any case.  More of this below…

Dangerous Driving ended in flames?

Graham’s client faced an allegation of dangerous driving.  The allegation involved witnesses stating that he was undertaking, tailgating and attempting to manoeuvre between two moving vehicles in adjacent lanes.  The incident ended with his client’s vehicle off the road and in a field.  The vehicle had rolled onto him all but severing his arm.  The car then burst into flames.

Late Instructions

Graham’s client had such confidence in his abilities that he failed to keep four office appointments, finally attending the office 48 hours before the trial.   Graham only received the MG5, which is a summary of the allegation and the evidence, from the Crown Prosecution Service the day before the trial.  The actual witness statements were only served at 9.45a.m. on the morning of the trial. These included the accident investigation report.

All witnesses were in attendance and prepared to give evidence.  The court was in a position to hear the trial.  An offer of a plea to careless driving fell on deaf ears.

I Can’t Remember

Cross-examination of witnesses was limited as the client could not recall anything of the incident.  Although he gave evidence on his own behalf, that largely consisted of an admission of previous driving offences while asserting that the driving on this occasion didn’t sound like the way he would drive.

After being addressed on the burden and standard of proof, the law relating to dangerous driving and our client’s account the Magistrates found him not guilty of dangerous driving.  He was, however, found guilty of careless driving but kept his driving licence.

Contact Graham Heathcote

If you are denying a case and the evidence is somewhat stacked against you, you ought to telephone Graham on 0115 9599550 or email him here.