Criminal Defence Solicitors Blog

Post-Conviction Behaviour SHPO

Posted on: March 22nd, 2016 by steve

Post-Conviction Behaviour SHPO

We were instructed recently by a gentleman who had concerns about a possible application for a post-conviction SHPO (Sexual Harm Prevention Order). He instructed us to investigate whether there were reasonable grounds for this application to be made and whether it seemed likely that he would receive a post-conviction behaviour SHPO.

Sexual Harm Prevention Orders are Orders that can be imposed against convicted sexual offenders. They are not imposed automatically upon every conviction for sexual offences, and there are specific rules that must be followed to determine whether an Application should be granted or not.

Our client had only become aware of the potential Application because of a chance conversation with the Social Worker working with his family.

He was incredibly worried. He maintained the position that he was innocent, and had already found his life and reputation damaged by the conviction. Now, the possibility of a post-conviction behaviour SHPO threatened to further ruin his life.

He instructed Forrest Williams to investigate whether there were grounds for the application.

We thoroughly reviewed the whole of his case and discussed the matter with him in detail, and were confident that there were in fact no grounds for a post-conviction behaviour SHPO to be applied for.

We decided to go further than this, however.

We set out our position in detail to the Officer in the Case and received a telephone call from him the next day.

The application for the post-conviction behaviour SHPO had been listed in the Crown Court for the next day. Our client had not been informed.

However, upon receipt of our letter and a further discussion, the officer spoke to senior colleagues who researched the matter and accepted that they in fact did not have grounds to make the application. The officer assured us that the hearing would be withdrawn and the matter was concluded.

We informed our client who was delighted and thanked us for being the only professional firm he had dealt with who actually listened to his concerns, returned his calls and treated him with respect.

This should have resolved the matter, however there was more to come.

The next morning at 8am, we were contacted by another police officer to advise that the hearing would go ahead after all – at 10am.

We were, of course, not at all happy with this and felt that this complete turnaround was grossly unfair to our client.

We contacted the Crown Court and set out our position, advising that there were no grounds for the post-conviction behaviour SHPO application to be made and, as such, we would ask that the matter be dismissed. If, however, there was any chance of the Application being allowed, we would ask that the matter be adjourned to allow sufficient time for us to prepare and organise representation for our client.

We were delighted to be informed that the Judge had considered the matter and, due to our correspondence, had refused the Application.

We were completely correct – there were no grounds for a post-conviction behaviour SHPO to be made.

Our client remains delighted to have this behind him, and we have encouraged him to Appeal against the conviction.

As a legal team, Forrest Williams are experts on intricate legal matters. We are also resourceful, intuitive and quick to take action. We’re human too, and we know how much it means to have someone who listens, understands, returns your calls, and supports you without judging you.

If you need legal help, call us now 01623 397200

Benefit Fraud and Savings

Posted on: March 17th, 2016 by steve

Benefit Fraud and Savings

We recently acted for two different clients, both of whom were being investigated for Benefit Fraud. In both cases we were able to persuade the Department for Work and Pensions that criminal charges were not appropriate.

Client A had a poor credit rating, very poor. In the past he had struggled financially and had got himself into debt. He was now clear and trying hard to regain some financial credibility by rebuilding his credit rating. He was signed off work due to health issues and in receipt of several benefits, he didn’t have the luxury of savings etc, he was living week to week. His mother was selling her house and downsizing, and to help him she put the proceeds into an account in his name. It was not his money, it was never intended to be his money, but with his mother’s agreement, he did make a number of transactions in and out to friends from the money. His belief was that this would help with his credit rating. During this period he had not worked, the moneys in and out of his account were not due to salary, just playing around with the transfer of money in the mistaken belief that it would help his credit rating. He also began to act as a ‘bank’ for a few friends – with them giving him small sums regularly to put away towards their holiday. Again the full amount remained, in his eyes, belonging to the original individual, he was just holding onto it so they couldn’t spend it.

He was investigated for benefit fraud. We liaised with the DWP; attending meetings with him and providing details of where the monies were from and why. We supported him throughout the case and were thrilled to be able to advise him that the DWP had decided that no criminal charges would be brought. This process took about 6 months, during which time we remained in close contact with the client, even after the case had been passed to the decision team at the DWP and we were told not to expect a response for at least 6 weeks. At the end of his case our client was very happy with the outcome and with our involvement.

Client B was a student in receipt of disability allowances. She was due to attend a mandatory residential event as part of her course, unfortunately the event was not suitable for her and accessibility was a big issue. The week was, in her words, a nightmare of embarrassment and pain where she was repeatedly unable to participate (or worse) due to the lack of resources available to her as a wheelchair bound blind woman. She even suffered a further serious injury due to the staff’s attempts to make the venue ‘work’ for her.

There was never any question that the University had made a mistake – they fully accepted that the accommodation booked was not wheelchair accessible, that no risk assessment had been completed as regards her needs and that she should have been warned of the unsuitability of the event for her and an alternative offered or an alternative venue should have been booked. The University settled with our client for the distress caused. Unfortunately this meant our client now had a significant sum in savings, which she used to buy her own mobility vehicle for use by her carers.

Our client was then investigated for benefit fraud – for claiming support when she had savings. We liaised with the client and the DWP, pointing out the unfairness of a disability discrimination compensation payment being used to remove her entitlement to the allowance she received to pay for a carer. As we were able to identify the source of the funds, and show that they had now been spent, the DWP agreed that this sum should not be held against her. Their investigative file was closed and no further action was taken. Our client was very relieved and grateful for our assistance.

At Forrest Williams we understand that people can unwittingly and unintentionally conduct themselves in a manner which would raise suspicions with the fraud team at the DWP. We know that benefit fraud is not always intentional. In particular benefit fraud and savings can be a complex issue and you should seek legal advice as soon as possible.

If you are being investigated on suspicion of Benefit Fraud then give the Forrest Williams team a call on 01623 397200. We will work with you to get the best possible outcome for you.

Plea and Trial Preparation Hearings

Posted on: March 14th, 2016 by steve

What is a PTPH – Plea and Trial Preparation Hearing?

All cases sent to the Crown Court after 5 January 2016 will be sent to a Plea and Trial Preparation Hearing.

Q: Why has there been a change?

A: There has, for some time, been a feeling within the legal system that Preliminary Hearings (in cases where not guilty pleas are expected) have been held too early in the process and that Plea and Case Management Hearings (PCMHs) are either not necessary or do not take place at a time when they could be most effective. This has resulted in lots of different hearings. Added to this are the different local practices and recording methods, which has resulted in court orders not being clearly communicated to those who must act on them, which in turn has resulted in non-compliance. The new PTPH means the adoption of a single national process to be used in all Crown Courts.

Q: When does the PTPH take place?

A: The PTPH takes place a little later than Preliminary Hearings, usually 28 days after sending, unless the Resident Judge orders otherwise. It occurs after the prosecution has provided available information about the case and obtained details of the availability of likely prosecution witnesses. In most cases, this should be sufficient to enable the court to case manage effectively without the need for a Further Case Management Hearing (FCMH) before trial. The PTPH presumes that the parties will have communicated with each other prior to the PTPH in accordance with the duty of engagement, and that they will continue to do so after the PTPH.

Q: What are the aims of the new system?

A: The overarching aims are as follows:

a single national process
robust case management
a reduced number of hearings
the earlier resolution of pleas and the identification of the issues of the case
the maximum participation and engagement by every participant within the system
effective compliance with the Criminal Procedure Rules (CrimPR); Practice and Court Directions.

Q: I have heard of a new Digital Case System. What is this?

A: Running parallel with the introduction of the Plea and Trial Preparation Hearing in the provision of the Digital Case System (DCS) to all Crown Courts before the end of March 2016. When the DCS has been fully implemented, there will be no paper files in the Crown Court. All the documents referred to in criminal cases (i.e. indictments, statements, paper exhibits, defence statements, applications and written orders) will be uploaded onto the DCS and will then be accessible to defence lawyers via computers, tablets and smartphones. Paper copies will still be needed, however, for those without representation as well as jurors. Documents will be ‘served’ when they are uploaded onto the system AND a notification sent by email to the party or parties involved. Any paperwork handed over during a hearing will only be ‘filed’ once it has been uploaded onto the DCS.

Q: What is meant by the Common Platform and why is it important?

A: The introduction of the Plea and Trial Preparation Hearing is a step towards electronic case management and the electronic monitoring of compliance which will be possible with the introduction of the Common Platform. The use of a single national process with largely standard directions is essential to the future development of systems for the court, prosecution and defence that work one with another.

If you are looking for specialist criminal defence lawyers, call our team now on 01623 600645.

Criminal Defence Blog

Post-Conviction Behaviour SHPO

Benefit Fraud and Savings

Plea and Trial Preparation Hearings