Child murder and knife crime to the fore of the election battle
We are in the midst of a general election, so it is perhaps not surprising that hot ‘law and order’ topics, such as knife crime, are featuring in the news as the main political parties fight for the popular vote.
It is worthwhile taking a brief look at some of the recent announcements, and seeing what is not receiving attention.
Child murder
The Conservatives propose changes where a person aged at least 21 years murders a child under 16 years. In such circumstances, they say that the starting point should be a ‘whole life order’. This would mean that they would never be eligible for parole. The Criminal Justice Act 2003 already contains measures in this regard, but this is, on the face of it, a tightening up of those provisions. On our assessment, if enacted, this provision is unlikely to impact on more than one or two cases each year.
Knife Crime
Knife crime remains high on the political agenda, and we have written about this topic in the recent past. The Conservatives propose changes to stop and search powers, and swift processing of those arrested before the courts. Any changes to stop and search provisions are likely to prove controversial. There are also concerns about whether the current resourcing of the criminal justice system is sufficient to cope with any radical new initiatives.
Policing
The conservatives have already announced the recruitment of 20,000 extra police officers. It is a fair assumption that if this target is reached more people will be arrested and brought before the courts. Again, some resource implications remain unaddressed.
The Liberal Democrats have pledged a further £300m for local policing.
Parole Board
The Conservatives have announced further changes to practice and procedure, to make the process more ‘victim-centric’ and transparent.
The Conservatives propose raising the ‘victim surcharge’ by 25%.
Is this a ‘Law and Order’ election?
The Conservatives have returned to a traditional ‘law and order’ theme, tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime. As well as punishment, there are promises of better prison rehabilitation schemes and more robust non-custodial options.
Other parties do not lead on this issue in quite the same way, but all promise better resourced public services, which inevitably includes policing.
What is missing?
It will come as no surprise to anyone that legal aid has barely been mentioned in the manifestos of any of the parties. There seems to be no appetite to address the drastic cuts of the last decades.
Keeping a watching brief
Whatever laws the next government brings forward, we remain committed to ensuring that the proper rights and protections afforded to all those we represent are safeguarded. We continue to be vigilant and ensure that any legislative developments that are brought forward do not infringe your fundamental rights and freedoms.
How can we help?
If you need specialist advice in relation to any criminal investigation or prosecution, from the initial investigation through to court proceedings, please get in touch. Call John Howey on 020 7388 1658 or email jhowey@jfhlaw.co.uk. Let us help.
Read More
I have received a postal requisition, what should I do?
A Postal Requisition is a legal document telling you that you have been charged with an offence. It will also tell you where and when you have to attend court.
Postal Requisitions are being used more and more as a result of fewer people being released on police bail. Previously, once someone had been arrested, they would remain on police bail until a decision was made to charge or not. If the decision was to charge, you would have to attend the police station. You would be told what you were being charged with and given a date to attend court. Now that very few people are released on bail, a postal requisition is used instead. Similarly, if you have been interviewed under caution, you will not have a bail date. However, the police need a way to notify you if you have to go to court, so you will be sent a postal requisition.
When should I get one?
In many cases, the postal requisition is not sent until many months after you have been arrested or interviewed under caution. For most offences there is no time limit for bringing the case to court. However, for some offences there is a 6-month time limit from the date of the offence to the date of the requisition. This time limit applies to summary only offences. These include offences such as common assault, threatening words and behaviour and driving with excess alcohol.
If you receive a postal requisition, you should contact us as soon as possible. We can apply for legal aid straight away. We will be able to obtain the paperwork from the prosecution in advance of your first appearance at court, and start preparing your case. If you are pleading guilty, we can make sure all of your mitigation is in place. Alternatively, if you are pleading not guilty, we can start contacting witnesses and obtaining evidence to support your defence. If you do not contact a solicitor before you appear in court you are unlikely to be granted an adjournment at the first hearing, and would be asked to see the duty solicitor.
Whatever you do, don’t ignore it
If you are sent a postal requisition, don’t ignore it. If you do not attend court, a warrant will be issued for your arrest. You could find yourself being arrested and kept in custody until you appear in court. This can be very inconvenient; for example, if you are arrested on a Saturday lunchtime, you will be kept in custody until court on Monday.
How can we help?
If you need specialist advice in relation to any criminal investigation or prosecution, from the initial investigation through to court proceedings, please get in touch. Call John Howey on 020 7388 1658 or email jhowey@jfhlaw.co.uk. Let us help.
Read More
Prince Andrew, the photograph, and the pizza alibi
The Pizza Alibi
On 10th March 2001, HRH Prince Andrew is alleged to have met and been photographed with a lady who has accused the Prince of sexual misconduct.
In a BBC interview, Prince Andrew throws ridicule on that suggestion and throws up two interesting observations in an attempt to establish an alibi:
“On that particular day that we now understand is the date, which is 10th March, I was at home. I was with the children and I’d taken Beatrice to a Pizza Express in Woking for a party at I suppose sort of four or five in the afternoon.
“…and then because the duchess was away, we have a simple rule in the family that when one is away the other one is there.”
Understandably, a member of the Royal Family may well remember a trip to Pizza Express, usual for the rest of us, but perhaps not a typical dining arrangement for the privileged few.
So, how does this stack up as an alibi?
In law, an alibi is defined as follows:
“…evidence tending to show that by reason of the presence of an accused at a particular place or in a particular area at a particular time he was not, or was unlikely to have been, at the place where the offence is alleged to have been committed at the time of its alleged commission.”
The fundamental problem with Prince Andrew’s account is that this alibi can only recover what must have been a relatively short period of time. The journey to/from (about 40 mins each way assuming the Prince was at his Windsor home) and time at the party itself (imagine 2 hours), so in total may be no more than 4 hours or so.
Unless the timing of the allegation is such that it corresponds precisely with the time Prince Andrew claims to have been in Woking, this is evidentially of little significance.
The next part of his account is also an alibi and amounts to a not unreasonable claim that he was at home (presumably looking out for the children, although he neglects to say this) because his wife was away.
Again, as a starting point, this is not at all unreasonable. However, we have a direct contradiction of accounts and a photograph which has not been established to be anything other than genuine at the moment.
Will it be enough?
This clash of accounts would need to be tested by a jury.
In short, mere assertions of alibi tend to be almost worthless. A robust defence strategy would nail down the times, and look for corroborative evidence. A prosecutor might easily find numerous occasions where both family members are away and ask about childcare arrangements. It is by no means unusual for members of the Royal Family to employ staff to look after children.
Regrettably for the Prince, his TV interview established nothing over and above a bare denial, which he had already given.
When our clients come to give an account on such a vital issue such as alibi, we ensure that a robust and detailed case is presented to the court.
When reputation and liberty are at stake, you should leave nothing to chance.
How can we help?
If you need specialist advice in relation to any criminal investigation or prosecution, from the initial investigation through to court proceedings, please get in touch. Call John Howey on 020 7388 1658 or email jhowey@jfhlaw.co.uk. Let us help.
Read More
Tracking violent offenders
A pilot is being carried out into electronic monitoring global positioning system. The aim of the pilot is to gain information to look at how existing and new electronic monitoring technologies could be used more effectively. The focus of the pilot will be on violent offenders. A specific pilot is also taking place in London for offenders who have served a custodial sentence for knife crimes.
What is the pilot for knife crime offenders?
The pilot began in February 2019 and is now being expanded from 4 to 24 boroughs of London. Up to 300 offenders could be tagged in the 12-month pilot. The pilot is due to end in April 2020.
Eligible offenders are those who are released from prison following sentencing for offences such as possession of a knife, robbery, aggravated burglary and grievous bodily harm. The offender must be over 18 and released from a London prison to suitable accommodation in a pilot area. The tagging is used as part of strict licence conditions.
Hasn’t the tag been around for ages?
The tag that is commonly referred to is a tag to monitor a curfew. A curfew is monitored through radio frequency technology and does not track location. Such a tag is frequently used as part of bail conditions and on release from prison sentences. It can be used for almost all offenders, not just violent offenders.
What is the difference?
A global positioning system (GPS) tag is a location monitoring enabled tag. A person’s location is captured 24 hours a day. It can also be used to monitor a specific area such as an exclusion zone where active monitoring only takes place if there is a breach of that condition.
How does it work?
A tag around the ankle is worn 24 hours a day, and a satellite signal can pinpoint the wearer’s location. They are designed to be difficult to remove. However, if it is removed, an alert is generated to a monitoring centre. The location monitoring is carried out in live time. The alerts in the event of a breach are immediate so that appropriate action can be carried out. As a result, high-risk offenders can be prioritised for an emergency response.
How is the information used?
An offender’s movements will be checked against the location of reported crimes or areas he is not permitted to be in as part of the licence conditions. It was also be used statistically to improve crime detention, monitor attendance at locations such as drug testing and rehabilitation activities and to enforce restrictions such as exclusion zones.
As well as being able to check that a person is where they should, or shouldn’t, be, monitoring can be used to assess behaviours and routines. An offender’s probation officer can use the information to see how that person is spending their time and how this impacts on their behaviour or possibility of further offending. The Probation Service can be provided with daily “heat maps” of addresses visited by the offender. This can be used to challenge their lifestyle choices.
Previous issues with tags
Earlier this year Serco was fined nearly £23 million by the Serious Fraud Office under a deferred prosecution agreement for offences of fraud and false accounting. The company had understated the level of profitability of its electronic monitoring contract in reports to the Ministry of Justice. The investigation began in 2013 when Serco paid £70 million in compensation to the government and lost their contract. Serco and G4S faced allegations of charging the government for electronically monitoring people who were dead, in jail or out of the country.
How can we help?
If you need specialist advice in relation to any criminal investigation or prosecution, from the initial investigation through to court proceedings, please get in touch. Call John Howey on 020 7388 1658 or email jhowey@jfhlaw.co.uk. Let us help.
Read More
Contempt of Court; when lies can really make you sick
In a civil case this week involving Jet2 Holidays, Karl and Laura Hughes now face contempt of court proceedings after they claimed that they had suffered sickness while on a package holiday. They said they had food poisoning caused by eating contaminated food or drink or swimming in the hotel’s unsanitary pool. In witness statements, Mr & Mrs Hughes said that they became ill on the second day of their holiday and were acutely ill for the remainder of the holiday. The witness statements were sent to Jet2 with an initial letter of claim.
Jet2 looked at the social media accounts of Mr and Mrs Hughes. They saw photos and comments posted by them during the holiday. The posts indicated they were physically well while away and had enjoyed their holiday. As a result, Mr and Mrs Hughes did not start proceedings against the company.
Contempt of Court proceedings
Jet2 however, decided to ask the court to start contempt of court proceedings against Mr & Mrs Hughes. This was on the basis that the witness statements were false, relying on the social media posts.
Mr & Mrs Hughes denied that the information in their statements was false. They made further statements setting out that they had complained to the hotel manager, and despite their illnesses, they had “put up a front” that they were having a great holiday. The social media posts were not a true reflection of their mood at the time.
What did the Court say?
Initially, a court decided that proceedings for contempt of court could not be brought as the statements had not been served as part of court proceedings. A higher court did not agree saying that the test was whether the conduct in question involved an interference with the administration of justice either in a particular case or more generally as a continuing process.
The court went on to say that even though Mr & Mrs Hughes had not yet started proceedings when the statements were sent that they were still capable of interfering with the administration of justice.
The issue of whether Mr & Mrs Hughes were in contempt of court has not yet been decided, but Jet2 now have permission to bring those proceedings. The moral of the tale is just because something does not happen “in court” does not mean that you cannot be in “contempt of court”.
What could happen?
If Mr & Mrs Hughes are found guilty of contempt of court, they could be sent to prison for up to 2 years or receive a fine.
It can be very tempting to make a false claim against an insurer. However, faced with an increase in claims, they are now fighting back in the civil courts. In addition, you could face criminal prosecution for fraud, leading in some cases to a prison sentence and criminal conviction. In 2017, a couple were sent to prison after trying to claim £20,000 compensation for being ill while on holiday.
How can we help?
If you need specialist advice in relation to any criminal investigation or prosecution, from the initial investigation through to court proceedings, please get in touch. Call John Howey on 020 7388 1658 or email jhowey@jfhlaw.co.uk. Let us help.
Read More