On 31st January 2018, regulations bring into force sections of The Criminal Finances Act 2017 dealing with unexplained wealth orders (UWOs), along with various other related provisions. This is the latest in what can often be seen to be a draconian set of powers aimed at interrupting criminal activity by the back door. However, as with other financial legislation, there is a risk that ordinary law-abiding people can find themselves subject to an order.
What are the unexplained wealth orders?
The purpose of this new order is to allow for certain people who obtain property which would ordinarily be beyond their obvious means, to be required to prove that it was acquired lawfully. This is in effect a reverse burden of proof.
Law enforcement agencies often have reasonable grounds to suspect that identified assets of such persons are the proceeds of serious crime. However, they are often unable to freeze or recover the assets under existing provisions in the Proceeds of Crime Act due to an inability to obtain evidence (often due to the inability to rely on full cooperation from other jurisdictions to obtain evidence).
The authorities which may apply for an unexplained wealth order are:
– The National Crime Agency.
– HM Revenue and Customs.
– The Financial Conduct Authority.
– The Director of the Serious Fraud Office.
– The Director of Public Prosecutions.
What to do?
If you are subjected to an order of this kind, you must provide a statement which does the following:
– Sets out the nature and extent of your interest in the property.
– Explains how you obtained the property, particularly how it was paid for.
– Provides details of any settlement if the property is held by trustees.
– Sets out any other information about the property specified in the order.
In addition to a statement, the order may require you to supply documents connected to the property.
Before it can make an order, the High Court must be satisfied that the following criteria are met:
– There is reasonable cause to believe that the person in question holds the property and that it is worth over £50,000.
– There are reasonable grounds for suspecting that this person’s known income (from lawful sources) would not be enough to obtain the property.
– The person in question is a politically exposed person (see definition below) or there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that they are or have been involved in a serious crime or someone connected to this person is or has been so involved.
A politically exposed person (PEP) is someone who is or has been entrusted with prominent public functions by an international organisation, a State other than the UK or another EEA State, a family member of such a person, a close associate or someone connected to them in another way.
Make sure you provide all the information required
It is a criminal offence to knowingly or recklessly make a statement that is false or misleading in response to an unexplained wealth order. Doing so can result in two years’ imprisonment and/or a fine. This offence can be tried in either the Magistrates’ Court or the Crown Court.
Failing to provide the information, in full or part, may prejudice any civil forfeiture proceedings.
In some cases, a UWO will be accompanied by an interim freezing order. This prohibits the respondent to the UWO and any other person with an interest in the property from in any way dealing with the property.
Where the property is thought to be in a country outside the UK, the Secretary of State may forward a request for assistance to the government of the receiving county. This can be a request to prevent anyone in that country from dealing with the relevant property and provide assistance in managing it as required.
We Can Assist
John Howey, Senior Solicitor
Over recent weeks, there have been a number of high profile rape cases involving disclosure, or more accurately non-disclosure, of information obtained by the police during their investigations. In a number of these cases, the evidence has come to light before the trial has concluded, leading to the acquittal of the defendants. In at least one case, an innocent man served a lengthy period in custody, and had already been released, before the evidence came to light and his conviction was quashed.
It may be tempting to think that these are isolated incidents, and limited to sexual offences, but they are not. Even with the current media frenzy over this issue, there are cases going on around the country where exactly the same is happening, day-in, day-out. One such example is a case that we dealt with earlier this month.
Our client has asked that we do not disclose his name, so we will call him D. We will call the girl involved C.
In July 2015, D was 16. C was 15. They had been boyfriend and girlfriend for 3 weeks when C went to D’s flat one evening after school. D’s mum and dad were at home. They went to his bedroom and had sex for the first time. C left shortly afterwards and went home.
She was upset with what had happened. They spent several hours on the phone to each other that night and the following morning. She also spoke with other friends on the phone. The next morning, she confided in her foster mum that she had had sex with D and that she had not wanted it to happen. C went to school and complained that she had been raped. The police were called. During the course of the morning another pupil, a friend of C’s showed one of the teachers a message that D had apparently sent the previous evening. The teacher took a photo of it. The message, in isolation, could have been seen as an admission.
D was arrested 36 hours after the incident. His phone was seized. He was interviewed by the police and accepted having sex with C, but said that she had consented. He was bailed pending further enquiries.
Despite the young age of the parties, no progress was made for some time. In February 2016 D was interviewed again, about a handwritten note found in the rubbish bin at C’s house. This note could be described as a sexual ‘to-do’ list. C denied she had written any of it except the title, and suggested D had written it. D denied ever having seen the piece of paper, or having written it. He agreed to provide some handwriting for analysis.
D was eventually charged in May last year, 22 months after the incident took place, by which time he had turned 18, and fell to be tried as an adult.
When the prosecution papers were eventually served, only C’s second interview was served, dealing with the piece of paper.
This was the first failure of disclosure; we had to chase the CPS for the main interview, containing details of the allegation of rape. We were also not provided with a proper transcript of D’s second police interview.
The communications between D and C were clearly relevant to the case. The Officer in charge of the investigation (OIC) in an unusual move provided a statement in which she stated that she had examined the mobile phones of both C and D, and provided details of an exchange of text messages that she said had passed between them on the day in question. We were also provided with an Excel spreadsheet, described as the download of C’s phone.
Even a cursory examination of this document showed that the phone number that the OIC had attributed to D was not his and that the messages in question were not sent by him or to him. Despite having both phones in her possession, the OIC had provided a statement that was wholly inaccurate and very misleading.
The schedule of unused prepared by the OIC (documents not relied upon by the Crown, but relevant to the investigation) listed just two items; the CRIS (police report) and D’s custody record. One of the two pages of the CRIS that were disclosed included a comment from an officer describing C as ‘not the compelling and honest witness that she first appeared’. A CRIS relating to a previous allegation of sexual assault made by the complainant that was not proceeded with, was also disclosed.
In the usual way, a defence statement was served, requesting a number of items which in our view were plainly disclosable, in particular.
– We asked for service of the phone downloads of the phones belonging to C and D. We were told by the CPS that the D’s phone download ‘has been requested and will be reviewed once it is available’. By this point, 27 months had passed since the offence and the CPS were still not in possession of the download. This means this important evidence had not been reviewed by the CPS when they made the decision to charge a young man with rape.
– The CPS had indicated at an early hearing that handwriting analysis was being done on the list found at C’s house. We asked for the outcome of this. We were told ‘the ‘list’ was not suitable for handwriting analysis and was therefore not completed’.
– The CPS had previously disclosed the existence of medical notes, GP notes, Counselling notes and Social Services records. In response to our request for access to these documents we were told ‘these were considered as part of initial disclosure and relevant entries were disclosed’
The case then came back to Court for a pre-trial review. Amongst the matters raised was the absence of the defendant’s mobile phone download. The OIC was at Court, and she claimed that the disc had ‘caught fire’ during the copying process; the inference was that the phone evidence was no longer available. The prosecution continued to maintain their stance that the other items were not disclosable, so we listed the case for a S8 disclosure application.
When the S8 application came to be heard, it was apparent that neither prosecuting counsel or the CPS had seen, let alone reviewed the social services file. The judge on that occasion ruled that the trial judge would need to consider the application at the outset of the trial.
The trial was listed for January 2nd 2018. On the morning of the trial, Prosecution Counsel took the view that the material had been reviewed (albeit not by him), and there was nothing further to disclose. Fortunately, the trial judge took a different view, and made it clear that it was the prosecutor’s job to review the material and decide what did and what didn’t meet the test for disclosure. Time was allowed for Prosecution counsel to review the social services and school records of C. The school records had to be retrieved from the school because the OIC did not have them. Amongst other information revealed in the days after the trial had actually started, we learnt.
We had already instructed our own handwriting expert to analyse the handwritten note. There were no issues regarding the quality of the sample and she was able to conclude that it was very unlikely that D wrote the sexual ‘to do’ list.
At the trial the CRIS was finally disclosed. It revealed that C’s mum had found the paper in the bin at home, and that as far back as March 2016, the reason given for being unable to do the comparison was because the school had none of D’s work available. Enquiries were apparently being made with C’s school for her books, but C’s mum had said it was ‘clearly’ C’s writing. It was clear that the reason provided by the OIC for their being no analysis was simply untrue.
In her evidence, C continued to maintain that she had not written the document. This raised serious issues regarding her credibility.
C’s phone download
On day 2 of the trial, the OIC provided a statement saying that the download from C’s phone had been provided from the lab that did the work as an Excel spreadsheet, this lab had gone into administration and the original material was no longer available. However, when pushed by D’s barrister, she eventually disclosed that she had a disc, albeit it was “corrupted”. Prosecution and defence counsel took and reviewed the disc which had the full original phone down load for both D’s and C’s phone on it. No explanation was ever forthcoming from the OIC as to why she had lied about the availability of the phone download.
Other failures of disclosure
D’s mobile download
This wasn’t provided until 22nd December 2017. It ran to over 1600 pages. Despite C claiming that their brief relationship had been unpleasant and that she had never been to D’s house, the download revealed daily lengthy conversations taking place between the two parties, and numerous loving text messages being sent. The contents of the messages also suggested that C had been to D’s house on a number of occasions.
There was no record of the message that he had apparently sent on the evening, apologising. There was no record of anything preceding that, or afterwards, that might have put it into context. The records did however show that he had spoken to the person the message was sent to immediately beforehand, which would provide some context for it. That person had declined to provide a statement, and despite speaking to her on a number of occasions, the OIC agreed in evidence that she never thought to ask to look at the witnesses phone to see the context of the relevant and damaging message.
Social Services records
Social Services records eventually disclosed that;
Her mother could not leave her at home alone because she was stealing from her and could not be trusted
The situation at home was so bad that police had been called twice to allegations of assault, once by C and once by her mum. Her mum had asked social services to remove her.
C had told medical professionals just four months before the allegation was made that ‘I lie a lot’, that she had fallen out with her best friend, was struggling at school and stressed about exams. She also describes herself as being impulsive and having difficulty managing her emotions.
As well as other matters referred to above, this disclosed that at the time of the offence C was having difficulty at her foster home and wanted to go back to her mum.
The verdict and some considerations
Fortunately for our client, the jury found him not guilty. However, what was not a particularly complex case had taken over 2 ½ years to be concluded during which a young man had to effectively put his life on hold. The evidential position in this case was very different at the end of the trial to the start of the trial. Had the evidence that was finally disclosed been made known to the CPS pre-charge, then there is a realistic chance that this defendant may never have been charged. Had the CPS properly reviewed the evidence at an earlier stage, they may well have chosen to discontinue the case.
There has been absolutely no publicity about this case, and D wishes it to remain that way. However, what is clear is that the cases reported in the media over recent weeks are not isolated cases, but a reflection on the current problems within the Criminal Justice System.
John Howey, Senior Solicitor
Extradition Appeal victory for JFH Crime
Our extradition team have successfully appealed against the decision to extradite a 30-year-old woman to Lithuania to serve an 18-month prison sentence for fraud and to stand trial for other similar offences.
Our client is the mother of two young children who had been cared for by their grandmother since her remand in custody almost a year ago. She entered the UK with her ex-partner using false identity documents and was convicted of those offences in this country. Born in the Soviet Union, she had never regularised her immigration status in independent Lithuania; she faced insurmountable obstacles in establishing her right to citizenship of that country, hence the assumed identity.
Her ex-partner, who has previously been convicted of murder in Lithuania, has now been removed from the country and is facing a further potential murder charge there. Before she was arrested, she was the victim of domestic violence and extreme controlling behaviour from her husband.
Children’s right to private and family life
She challenged extradition on the basis that her statelessness would mean she could never return to the UK if she were extradited and would never be reunited with her children. By the time her appeal was heard, her two children had been severely affected by their mother’s arrest and imprisonment and were at real risk of further significant and serious psychological harm were she to be extradited. The local social services were about to begin care proceedings, as their grandmother could no longer look after the children.
Describing the case as one of the most difficult of its type, High Court judge, Sir Wyn Williams accepted that if the woman were extradited, she would automatically lose custody of her children as she would be unable to contest care proceedings in the family court. He concluded that this outcome would be a clearly disproportionate interference with her and her children’s right to private and family life.
After her release, we received a very nice ‘thank you’ card from the client. she said;
‘It’s only a thank you card but for me thank you means much more. It’s only because of this company I have the opportunity to send this card from outside. I am so thankful for everyone and for everything’
In court, our client was represented by Malcolm Hawkes of Doughty Street Chambers.
John Howey, Senior Solicitor
Redemption has always been an important part of our justice system; you do the crime, you do time. Once your debt is paid, you should then be free to start again, without forever being haunted by ghosts of the past.
We all recognise that there must be limits to this principle, so if convicted of murder or rape, you are unlikely ever to be able to expunge the past. But for relatively minor offending, or offending so far in the past to render it irrelevant, one might expect that you could move on.
Before the digital age, moving on was possible, local news was soon forgotten, or people could move away and start again. But now, with the growth of online news and the ability of almost anyone able to publish almost anything on the internet, the picture is different. Powerful search engines such as Google ensure that if the information is out there, there is a method of finding it.
So, to counteract this, people now speak of a ‘right to be forgotten’, and this is where data protection laws are being utilised.
This ‘right to be forgotten’ is not a new concept introduced under data protection laws. The principle was long-ago recognised by the UK Parliament with the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. That Act provides that after a specified period of time (which varies according to the sentence that was imposed) a person’s previous convictions are regarded as having been “spent”. The underlying rationale is that, for all but the most serious offences, people should not have a lifelong “blot” on their record but should be able to live without that shadow, and the consequences it may have for their employment or other areas of their life. So, the principle of a “right to be forgotten” was recognised in domestic law many years ago, and long before data protection laws came along. Its emergence in the field of data protection simply reflects the significant development in the dissemination of information represented by the Internet.
What does the law say?
As a result of the harmonisation of data protection laws across the EU, the European Court of Justice has jurisdiction to determine issues arising from data protection cases. Courts of the member states of the EU can refer cases to the ECJ for rulings as to the interpretation of the law. One such case – Google Spain SL –v- Agencia Espanol de Proteccion de Datos (AEPD) (Case C-131/12, 13 May 2014)  QB 1022 – has become fairly well-known and has been the subject of public debate. It is colloquially known as the Google Spain case. It is the case that first really brought to prominence the notion of a “right to be forgotten”.
Put very simply, the case decided that, after a period of time, certain information about a person (although it may have been accurate many years ago, and may remain so) should not continue to be made available to the public in Internet search results because to do so would infringe the data protection rights of the individual concerned. The right was not absolute. It could be outweighed by other considerations.
The Court explained:
“It must be pointed out at the outset that….processing of personal data, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, carried out by the operator of a search engine is liable to affect significantly the fundamental rights to privacy and to the protection of personal data when the search by means of that engine is carried out on the basis of an individual’s name, since that processing enables any internet user to obtain through the list of results a structured overview of the information relating to that individual that can be found on the internet — information which potentially concerns a vast number of aspects of his private life and which, without the search engine, could not have been interconnected or could have been only with great difficulty — and thereby to establish a more or less detailed profile of him. Furthermore, the effect of the interference with those rights of the data subject is heightened on account of the important role played by the internet and search engines in modern society, which render the information contained in such a list of results ubiquitous.
In the light of the potential seriousness of that interference, it is clear that it cannot be justified by merely the economic interest which the operator of such an engine has in that processing. However, inasmuch as the removal of links from the list of results could, depending on the information at issue, have effects upon the legitimate interest of internet users potentially interested in having access to that information, in situations such as that at issue in the main proceedings a fair balance should be sought in particular between that interest and the data subject’s fundamental rights… Whilst it is true that the data subject’s rights protected by those articles also override, as a general rule, that interest of internet users, that balance may however depend, in specific cases, on the nature of the information in question and its sensitivity for the data subject’s private life and on the interest of the public in having that information, an interest which may vary, in particular, according to the role played by the data subject in public life.”
The Right to be Forgotten vs the Right to Privacy
This principle sharply divides public opinion. Concern has been expressed that the right to be forgotten could be misused and might lead, in effect, to censorship of the information that is available on the Internet. Criminal cases are invariably conducted in public. Information relating to people who are convicted of criminal offences may well end up on the ‘public record’, most frequently as a result of newspaper reports of cases that appear in the Courts. Those opposed to the “right to be forgotten” contend that access to this sort of information should not be prevented by restrictions placed on what can appear in the results of Internet search engines.
This is another area of the law in which two human rights come into conflict; the right to be forgotten is a dimension of the right to privacy and it conflicts with the right of freedom of expression (which includes the right to receive as well as to impart information). When disputes like this arise, it is ultimately for the Court to decide where the balance is to be struck in an individual case.
What about the UK courts?
The High Court is soon to decide this issue so far as the UK is concerned.
The Claimants in two cases before the Court (to be heard in February and March 2018) are both individuals (neither is a ‘celebrity’ or politician) who have previously been convicted of criminal offences, but both have now been “rehabilitated” under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. One was convicted in the late 90s of conspiracy to account falsely. Over ten years ago, the other was convicted of conspiracy to intercept communications. Both complain in their respective claims that Google is continuing to return, in response to searches of their names, links to information about their respective convictions. Some of the links that are complained about are links to newspaper articles reporting the original criminal proceedings. The Claimants argue that the time has come for them to be entitled to have these entries removed from searches carried out on Google.
What is the High Court likely to say on this issue?
We simply don’t know for sure, but most commentators think that earlier EU decisions are likely to be adopted. But, whichever way the case goes, it is likely, ultimately, to end up before the Supreme Court, so it may be a year or so before we have any clarity.
How we can assist
John Howey, Senior SolicitorRead More
If you were able to listen in to a conference between client and solicitor, you might hear an exchange a little like this one:
‘What am I looking at?’
‘Around 12-15 months, suspended if you are very lucky.’
‘Oh, I can live with that!’
‘But there is something else?’
‘You are going to lose your money, your house and your car.’
What is confiscation?
At its most simple it is the process by which those convicted of a crime are deprived of their benefit from that crime.
So, for example, Jill steals £10,000 from her employer and spends it on a luxury holiday.
Her proceeds from that crime (referred to as the ‘benefit’) is £10,000, so she can expect a confiscation order to be made in that sum.
That sounds fair
Well, it does sound ok on the face of it, but it is a little more complicated than that. The £10,000 from the confiscation order will not go to the employer; it will go to the state.
But the court may also make a compensation order in the sum of £10,000 to repay the employer for their loss.
So, Jill will have to pay £20,000?
It can get a whole lot worse!
For example, Paul steals a Porsche worth £130,000 but a few hours later he is stopped by the police, the car is recovered, and it is returned to its owner.
The ‘benefit’ here is £130,000 (the value of the car), even though the car has been returned.
Yes, it is. The examples above are all from real cases, and while the result outlined above does not always follow, the starting point is that confiscation is ‘draconian and intended to be draconian’.
Certain convictions trigger what are known as ‘lifestyle provisions’ which means that your finances going back many years will be subject to investigation – unless you can establish that the income was lawfully obtained, the monies will be at risk of being added to the ‘benefit’ figure.
I haven’t got any money, so I don’t care
Sure, but the benefit figure will still be determined, and if for example, you come into some money at a later date (for example an inheritance or pension), the prosecution can seek to take that money from you. Any property of value can be seized in order to satisfy a confiscation order, and if the court believes that you can pay the order, and you fail to do so, you can be sent to prison in default.
It all sounds rather complicated
It is, and we haven’t even mentioned gifts, hidden assets, corporate veils and A1P1 considerations.
Often the real punishment felt by an offender is not the headline sentence but the financial penalty that flows from a confiscation order.
The rules are incredibly complicated, and we often find fundamental errors and assumptions being made by financial investigators. Basic errors can result in wrongful calculations amounting to many tens of thousands of pounds.
In some cases, we can argue that the making of a confiscation order is so disproportionate that to do so would be unlawful.
So, before entrusting your case to any other solicitor ensure that they are up to speed not only on the basics of the offence with which you have been charged, but also in relation to confiscation.
John Howey, Senior SolicitorRead More
We talk a lot in this Country about the benefits of a jury trial, how leaving the decision in the hands of 12 people chosen at random, is the fairest way of securing justice, but how does a jury decide?
There is a lot that we do not know
Ironically, the process of how a jury reaches its decision is unknown as laws prevent us examining jury decisions and questioning them on their findings.
There are lots of academic studies, but in reality, they shed little light on the process.
What we do know however is the legal process that guides them in their decision making and despite the lack of ‘hard proof.’ most lawyers actively support trial by jury.
The internet age
The power of Google and new networking spaces such as Facebook and Twitter can present challenges to a jury trial if jurors seek information from these sources. There is a good reason why certain information is withheld from a jury (for example previous convictions), and going behind explicit instructions not to discuss evidence with anyone other than a fellow juror when the jury is assembled, or seeking information from external sources, undermines jury trial.
For this reason, jurors will be given clear warnings throughout the trial process.
We start with 12
We always start with 12; no criminal jury trial can commence with fewer jurors. Unlike in America, there is no selection process. Neither the prosecution nor the defence can object to a particular juror.
For lots of reasons, however, a trial does not always finish with 12. Jurors may become sick and be unable to return, or in rare cases, they may be removed from a jury due to some misconduct during the trial. As long as the number of jurors does not fall below 9, a verdict can be reached.
A unanimous verdict
At all times, the Judge will be seeking a unanimous verdict from the jury, that is a verdict upon which all the jurors are agreed, so either guilty or not guilty.
In the early stages of deliberation, a Judge is prevented by law from accepting a majority verdict, but the time may come when a majority decision is permissible. The timing of that will depend very much on the facts of the particular case.
When a majority verdict becomes permissible, the jury will be brought back into court and advised accordingly. However, even at that stage, they will be asked to still arrive at a unanimous verdict if that is possible. If it is not possible, then a majority verdict will be acceptable.
On occasion, it will become apparent to the Judge that the jury cannot reach a verdict, even a majority one. The Judge will often know this as the jury will write a note to explain the situation. The contents of that note will usually not be shared with the advocates, and this is often because ‘it contains numbers’, i.e. how many jurors are voting one way or the other. Such notes remain confidential in all trials.
When a deadlock occurs a ‘give and take’ direction will be given, calling upon all jurors to use their collective wisdom to reach a decision.
If the jury reaches a unanimous verdict the issue is settled, but if not, and the time is appropriate for a majority verdict, a majority may be acceptable.
Whether a majority verdict is acceptable depends on the balance of votes, which in turn depends on how many jurors remain.
The combinations are:
Where there are 12 jurors: 11 – 1 or 10 – 2
Where there are 11 jurors: 10 -1
Where there are 10 jurors: 9 – 1
(where the jury falls to 9 jurors, only a unanimous verdict is acceptable).
If the verdict is not guilty, the defendant is free to leave court (assuming that there are no other matters remaining), if guilty, the judge will go on to consider sentencing.
Back to deadlock
If despite further deliberation it becomes clear that the jury is deadlocked, the jury will be discharged, and the trial will be over.
In these circumstances, the prosecution may either proceed with a new trial or abandon the trial (for example where it is clear at that stage that the evidence is weak).
How we can assist
We realise that the trial process can be difficult for both our clients and their families. We work hard at all stages to explain what is going on and what will happen next.
It is your case and you ought not to be reduced to a mere bystander as the legal process occurs around you.
As experienced trial lawyers, we do not lose sight of the person behind the proceedings.
If you would like advice about a criminal case, please contact us on 020 7388 1658, or email@example.com.Read More
One of the most serious offences that can come before a court is ‘perverting the course of justice’, this is because it strikes at the very heart of the justice system.
Due to its seriousness, immediate custody almost always follows, yet there are a surprising number of people who commit this offence, thinking that they will easily get away with it.
“Offences of perverting the course of justice are intrinsically so serious that they will almost always attract an immediate custodial sentence unless there are exceptional circumstances justifying a different course” (R v Cronin (2017)).
The Panicked Driver
The scenario is a common one, one person in the family already has 9 points on their driving licence, and a notice of intended prosecution drops through the door in relation to another traffic offence.
A traffic offence that is in itself so relatively minor that it will only result in 3 penalty points and a modest fine. But, in this instance due to the previous points on the licence, it will possibly result in the loss of that licence. This was exactly the scenario that faced Chris Huhne in 2003, when he was a Liberal Democrat MP.
It might appear easy for another person to take the blame, perhaps even name a relative abroad; who would possibly find out?
Of course, this is the breeding ground for many a mistake – that belief that you will not be caught.
In reality, however, the police take a keen interest in these cases, and often it requires only a modicum of detective work to reveal the true offender.
The consequences can be horrendous, the points follow, as does the disqualification which now becomes a reality with no realistic prospect of arguing exceptional hardship, and worst of all, two people are arrested, possibly in the early hours, in front of friends and family, maybe even young children.
And finally, a prison sentence follows. All to avoid a few penalty points.
The irony is that in many cases the disqualification could have been avoided if early advice had been obtained from an experienced road traffic practitioner.
Many otherwise decent hardworking people find themselves before the court through decisions made in panic. Before acting always seek advice.
Contact John Howey on 02073881658 or firstname.lastname@example.org for advice on all road traffic issues.Read More