Freephone: 0800 1933 999
Mobile Freephone: 01623 397 200

Chat Online

Criminal Defence Blog

Not Guilty Verdict For Criminal Damage Case

WRITTEN BY JULIA COFFIN, PARALEGAL

 

My client is a young man that had been involved in an altercation with a group of youths and charged with Criminal Damage. His mother called me shortly before Christmas extremely frustrated at the lack of progress she was experiencing from the Legal Aid Solicitor they had been working with up until that point. Of course I reassured her that we could help her son, and we took over the case.

 

Our client is a young man of good character with no previous convictions, he is a student with excellent grades and offers from three Universities to study Business. He was chosen to be peer support at school as well as Captain of the School Sports Team, Rugby Team and a Prefect.

 

The client had been travelling in a cab with five friends and an incident occurred whereby the cab driver was assaulted by one of the group and a window was broken by another. My client was identified as being present at the scene and subsequently charged with Criminal Damage.

 

When I interviewed the client on the telephone he came across as a very polite young man, and I couldn’t reconcile the idea of the person I was speaking to causing criminal damage in a fit of youthful exuberance – he just didn’t come across that way to me.

 

When I reviewed the file, the evidence against him was extremely thin, it appeared that he had been singled out as he had been positively identified as being present, which he had never disputed, however he had not been involved in the fracas and was merely present.

 

We approached the CPS and asked them to review the case due to a lack of evidence, which was denied and the matter proceeded to trial.

 

Our client was represented by one of our experienced Barristers from our London Chambers and we secured a verdict of Not Guilty – which wasn’t entirely surprising given the very weak case against him.

 

The Barrister’s account of the courtroom proceedings was that the prosecutor approached the case as if it were a murder trial, shouting at our client – who is only 18 years old – and being selective in the evidence she presented, deliberately withholding parts of the evidence that would undermine their case and assist our defence case. The prosecutor was described as being horrible and unprofessional and the family are considering lodging a formal complaint about her conduct and behaviour.

 

We secured an excellent and well deserved result for our client, a young man who no longer faces the possibility of a criminal record for something he wasn’t involved with.

 

We stayed in constant contact with our client’s parents at all stages throughout the case preparations and lead up to the trial, reassuring them at every point as they were very worried about their son and what might happen. I received a text from them after the trial ended saying that they couldn’t thank me enough, and that the Barrister was fantastic!

 

If you are being charged with, or investigated for, criminal damage, call me now for a free initial consultation on 01623 397200.

 

What Is The Law on Self-Defence?

What is the Law on Self-Defence?

 

Self-defence is an area of law that has received much attention over recent years, however most people are not clear on what exactly constitutes self-defence and whether it can be used successfully as a defence.

 

This post aims to provide basic information about self-defence – for detailed information about whether you have a defence on these grounds, call our legal team on 01623 397200. We will be able to assess your individual case and advise you.

 

In general terms, the law of self-defence exists so that people who act ‘reasonably and in good faith’ to defend themselves, their family or their property, or for the prevention of crime or apprehension of an offender, should not face prosecution.

 

What Is Reasonable?

 

A key term within the area of self-defence is whether the force used was reasonable force.

 

What constitutes reasonable force differs depending on the circumstances.

 

The law has now changed in relation to defending against intruders, with Section 43 of the Crime and Courts Act amending Section 76 of the Criminal Justice & Immigration Act 2008 to allow that in situations where intruders gain entry, a householder who acts instinctively and honestly in the heat of the moment will likely be considered to have acted lawfully in self-defence, even if the force used later turns out to have been disproportionate.

 

When a case involves preventing a crime or apprehending a criminal, the court will be very concerned with striking a balance between encouraging responsible citizens and discouraging vigilante behaviour. The latter will be disapproved of by the court and cases of vigilante behaviour will be dealt with as such.

 

The key questions to ascertain whether reasonable force was used are:

 

  1. Was the use of force necessary?
  2. Was the force used reasonable?

 

What amounts to reasonable force is established based on the circumstances of each case, so full preparation of defence cases before trial, and specialist advocacy are vital.

 

While the circumstances of the case are important, the level of force used is to be considered in alignment with what a reasonable person would consider to be reasonable in the situation.

 

It is also important to consider the circumstances that the defendant believed they were in, and this belief must be genuine, not reasonable. Naturally, the court will require more persuading that an unreasonable belief was genuinely held – for example, a grown man who attacks a single woman who was unarmed may struggle to convince the court that his actions were necessary for self-defence because he genuinely believed that he was under threat of violence.

 

Self-defence is a complex area of law. If you are facing a criminal charge and believe that you have grounds to argue this defence, contact us now on 01623 397200 for a free initial telephone consultation.

 

 

What Are Rape, Assault by Penetration and Sexual Assault?

If you are investigated for a sexual offence, it is vital that you seek legal advice from specialist solicitors for sexual offences as soon as possible.

 

In this post, we will explain the difference between three of the most common sexual offences: rape, assault by penetration and sexual assault.  These terms are often used interchangeably, but each is a very specific offence and our advice in terms of your plea will depend on the specific charge against you.

 

What is Rape?

 

Rape is a criminal offence under the Sexual Offences Act 2003.

 

Rape is committed where a person intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person with his penis when the other person does not consent to such activity and the perpetrator does not reasonably believe that the other person consents.

 

Whether the alleged offender will be seen to have reasonably believed that consent was present will be determined based on all of the circumstances of the case.

 

A person found guilty of rape can be sentenced to life imprisonment.

 

What is assault by penetration?

 

Assault by penetration occurs when a person penetrates the vagina or anus of another person with a part of his body or anything else for sexual purposes where the other person does not consent and the alleged offender does not reasonably believe they consent.

 

A person found guilty of assault by penetration can be sentenced to life imprisonment.

 

What is sexual assault?

 

Sexual assault occurs when a person intentionally touches another person for sexual purposes without the consent of that person and where they do not reasonably believe that they do consent.

 

A person found guilty of sexual assault can be sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment.

 

What is causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent?

 

This offence is committed when a person intentionally causes another person to engage in a sexual activity where the other person does not consent to the activity and the alleged offender does not reasonably believe that they consent.

 

Sentencing for people found guilty of this offence can range from a fine to 10 years’ imprisonment, so ensuring that the specifics of the allegation are correct is vital with cases like this.

 

If you are being investigated for, or charged with any of these matters, you need solicitors for sexual offences to give you advice urgently.  Forrest Williams are specialists in this field – call us now for advice on01623 397200.