Freephone: 0800 1933 999
Mobile Freephone: 01623 397 200

Chat Online

Criminal Defence Blog

Archive for the ‘Law Updates’ Category

New Law: Controlling Or Coercive Behaviour

Awards - Frames - Medium - 1000 x 313 (No Scaling Req)

 

CONTROLLING OR COERCIVE BEHAVIOUR IN AN INTIMATE OR FAMILY RELATIONSHIP

 

Section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015 created a new offence of controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship. This new offence was created to tackle the reported difficulty of proving a pattern of behaviour amounting to harassment within an intimate relationship.

 

This new offence came into force on 29 December 2015 and is not retrospective, meaning that anything that occurred before that date cannot be charged as the offence of controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship.

 

The law states that you commit this offence if you repeatedly or continuously engage in behaviour towards another person that is controlling or coercive, and you and that person are personally connected, and the behaviour has a serious effect on that person, and you know or ought to know that the behaviour would have a serious effect on that person.

 

You and the other person are deemed to be ‘personally connected’ if you are in an intimate relationship, or you live together and are either members of the same family or you live together and have previously been in an intimate relationship with each other.

 

It can be proved that your behaviour had a ‘serious effect’ on the other person in two ways. Either:

 

  • It causes the other person to fear, on at least two occasions, that violence will be used against them; OR
  • It causes the other person serious alarm or distress which has a substantial adverse effect on their day to day life, including things such as:
    • Stopping or changing the way someone socialises
    • Physical or mental health deterioration
    • A change in routine at home including those associated with mealtimes or household chores
    • Attendance record at school
    • Putting in place measures at home to safeguard themselves or their children
    • Changes to work patterns, employment status or routes to work

 

If you are charged with this offence, your case will be heard in the magistrates or Crown Court and, if convicted, the sentence will depend on which court hears the case.

 

If you are convicted in the Crown Court, you are at risk of a sentence of up to five years in prison, and if you are convicted in the magistrates’ court, you are at risk of a sentence of up to 6 months in prison.

 

Examples of controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship can include:

 

  • Isolating a person from their friends and family
  • Depriving them of their basic needs
  • Monitoring their time
  • Monitoring a person via online communication tools or using spyware
  • Taking control over aspects of their everyday life, such as where they can go, who they can see, what to wear and when they can sleep
  • Depriving them access to support services, such as specialist support or medical services
  • Repeatedly putting them down such as telling them they are worthless
  • Enforcing rules and activity which humiliate, degrade or dehumanise the victim
  • Forcing the victim to take part in criminal activity such as shoplifting, neglect or abuse of children to encourage self-blame and prevent disclosure to authorities
  • Financial abuse including control of finances, such as only allowing a person a punitive allowance
  • Control ability to go to school or place of study
  • Taking wages, benefits or allowances
  • Threats to hurt or kill
  • Threats to harm a child
  • Threats to reveal or publish private information (e.g. threatening to ‘out’ someone)
  • Threats to hurt or physically harming a family pet
  • Assault
  • Criminal damage (such as destruction of household goods)
  • Preventing a person from having access to transport or from working
  • Preventing a person from being able to attend school, college or University
  • Family ‘dishonour’
  • Reputational damage
  • Disclosure of sexual orientation
  • Disclosure of HIV status or other medical condition without consent
  • Limiting access to family, friends and finances

 

Defences against this charge are available, and these range from you asserting that the allegations are entirely fabricated, to your genuine belief that by behaving in the ways alleged you were acting in the other person’s interests and/or that your behaviour was reasonable in the circumstances.

 

If you are being investigated in relation to an allegation of controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship, it is vital that you seek specialist legal help as soon as possible.

 

Our dedicated team are here to help – call us now on 01623 397200.

 

Joint Enterprise Law Wrongly Interpreted For 30 Years

Awards - Frames - Medium - 1000 x 313 (No Scaling Req)

The Supreme Court have ruled that the Joint Enterprise law, which has allowed people to be convicted of murder even if they did not deliver the fatal blow, has been wrongly interpreted for more than 30 years.

 

The joint enterprise law has been used to convict people in gang-related cases where it could be argued that the defendant ‘could’ have foreseen that their associates would commit violent acts.  Supreme Court judges have now ruled that this ‘foresight’ test was wrong and should not have been used.

 

It is expected that hundreds of prisoners will be able to seek Appeals due to this change in the joint enterprise law, with some prisoners receiving lesser convictions and others having their convictions quashed entirely.

 

The decision follows five Supreme Court Judges considering the case of Ameen Jogee, who was given a life sentence under a joint enterprise conviction for the murder of former Leicestershire police officer Paul Fyfe in 2011.

 

Jogee was accused of encouraging his friend, Mohammed Hirsi, who stabbed Paul Fyfe in the heart.  Hirsi also received a life sentence.

 

Jogee argued that he was not in the house at the time of the offence, and could not have foreseen what Hirsi intended to do.

 

Joint enterprise law has been used in several high profile cases, including the murder of Stephen Lawrence, whereby David Norris and Gary Dobson were both convicted under joint enterprise in 2012 for his 1993 murder.

 

Lord Neuberger, when delivering this new judgment on joint enterprise law, said that it was wrong to treat foresight as a sufficient test to convict someone of murder:

 

“The court is satisfied after a much fuller review of the law than in the earlier cases that the courts took a wrong turn in 1984.  And it is the responsibility of this court to put the law right.”

 

Jogee’s conviction has been set aside, meaning his original conviction no longer stands.  The ruling does not mean that Jogee or others who similarly should not have been convicted under the joint enterprise law will walk free – Jogee was found to be unquestionably guilty of manslaughter and potentially guilty of murder on other grounds.

 

Lord Neuberger further confirmed that:

 

“A person who joins in a crime, which any reasonable person would realise involves a risk of harm, and death then results, is guilty at least of manslaughter.”

 

It is also important to note that a person who intentionally encourages or assists with the committing of a crime is as guilty as the person who physically commits the crime, and that this ruling on joint enterprise does not mean that all joint enterprise convictions are unsafe.

 

If you would like to discuss joint enterprise law in relation to a loved one, call our expert team now on 01623 397200.

 

 

 

Blavo & Co Solicitors Closed Down By SRA

 

 

 

Blavo & Co Solicitors Closed Down By SRA

 

London based solicitors, Blavo & Co, have been dramatically closed down by the SRA.

 

The principal of the firm, John Blavo, has had his practicing certificate suspended, meaning he cannot practice as a solicitor.

 

The SRA gave the following reasons for their intervention:

 

  • There is reason to suspect dishonesty of the part of a manager or employee of Blavo & Co Solicitors Limited
  • There is reason to suspect dishonesty on the part of John Blavo in connection with his practice
  • To protect the interests of clients of Blavo & Co Solicitors Limited

 

If you are a client of Blavo & Co, your file will be passed to external agents.

 

If you’d like to reassess your representation for your case, and are looking for a firm of private criminal lawyers (we do not do any Legal Aid work), please contact us confidentially on 01623 397200.

Forrest Williams TV