criminallaw Archives | Eden Legal Services

Targeting Drink Drivers

edelegal — Tue, 12 Jun 2018 06:38:15 +0000

The government has announced its intention to use new roadside breathalysers, in a move that could see a further 6,000 convictions per year for drink driving. At the moment, the breath test procedure is in 2 stages, a person who tests positive at the roadside will be arrested and taken to a police station for a further test to be administered. This is known as the ‘evidential test’ and is the one that forms the basis of any prosecution decision. The gap in time between the first positive breath test and the one administered at the police station may be significant enough to ensure that a person blows a negative reading – this is due to falling alcohol levels over time (although in some cases the reverse can also happen). While 'back calculation' laws are available, the evidence base is such that they are seldom used for this scenario. Arguably, therefore, some drink drivers go free. The legislation allowing for a definitive roadside evidential breath test procedure is already in place, but today the government has announced a competition aimed at device manufacturers, with the aim of ensuring that suitable devices are approved and in use by 2020. Around 460,000 breath tests are conducted each year, with some 59,000 people providing a positive reading. Approximately 6,000 people provide a positive reading at the roadside but later are found to be under the limit when tested at the police station - this change will see those people prosecuted. In many instances these will be people who have 'gambled' on the quick lunchtime drink or have not allowed quite enough time to sober up from the night before. The changes will also reduce the scope for so-called ‘loophole defences’, popular due to the complexities of the police station procedure. It is expected that decades of case law will become redundant once the new devices have been rolled out. Experience tells us however, that as one legal challenge closes, another pops up! The penalties for drink driving are severe, with minimum periods of disqualification, high financial penalties and punishing insurance premiums for many years to come. In many cases, offenders face the loss of employment. 'One for the road' often comes at a very high price. How can we assist? We are experts in all aspects of drink and drug driving law. This is one of the most complex areas of criminal law, and early advice should be sought in order to achieve the best outcome. Contact Hashmita Patel or Stephanie Brownlees on 01902 275 042 or email info@edenlegalservices.co.uk

The post Targeting Drink Drivers appeared first on Eden Legal Services.

Stalking

edelegal — Fri, 25 May 2018 09:01:02 +0000

New offences of stalking (in addition to existing offences of harassment) were introduced in 2012. The offences are harassment which involves a course of conduct that amounts to stalking. There are two offences, stalking involving fear of violence and stalking involving serious alarm or distress. What is stalking? There is no strict definition, but the legislation lists a number of behaviours associated with stalking –

following a person,
contacting or attempting to contact a person by any means,
publishing material relating to a person or purporting to come from them,
monitoring a person’s use of the internet, email or communications,
loitering,
interfering with any property in the possession of a person,
watching or spying on a person.

The list is not exhaustive and nor is behaving in one of these ways automatically stalking, context is everything. What must the prosecution prove?

That there is a course of conduct
which constitutes harassment, and
the course of conduct amounts to stalking.

Additionally, for the offence involving fear of violence it must be proven -

the conduct causes another to fear that violence will be used against him; and
which the defendant knows or ought to know will cause another to fear that violence will be used against him.

The test whether he “ought to know”, is whether a reasonable person in possession of the same information would think that the course of conduct would cause the other to fear violence. It is an offence if conduct amounts to stalking and causes another to fear, on at least two occasions that violence will be used, or that the conduct causes serious alarm or distress, which has a substantial effect on a person’s day to day activities. This could mean that they have to, for example, change a route they normally use, move home or change the way they socialise. It could also mean a change to a person’s physical or mental health. Are there any defences? It is a defence to show –

the course of conduct was pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime;
the course of conduct was pursued under a rule of law;
that any conduct was reasonable

Additionally, for the violence offence it is a defence if the course of conduct was reasonable for the protection of the defendant or another, or for the protection of his or another’s property. What sentence could I get? For the basic offence of stalking the maximum sentence is six months imprisonment, for the offence causing fear of violence or serious alarm/distress the maximum sentence is 10 years imprisonment (for an offence on or after 2 April 2017; 5 years for offences prior to that date). A restraining order to protect the victim from further contact can also be imposed, even if a defendant is found not guilty of the offence. How can we help? These are serious allegations and the law is complex, please contact Hashmita Patel or Stephanie Brownlees for further advice and representation. As experienced defence lawyers we know that there is always another side to the story, let us tell that for you. Call us now on 01902 275 042 0r email info@edenlegalservices.co.uk

The post Stalking appeared first on Eden Legal Services.

Unlawful Legal Aid Cuts- The MoJ Backs Down

edelegal — Sat, 11 Nov 2017 14:05:27 +0000

The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has abandoned its' challenge to the April 2017 Court of Appeal decision, which ruled that legal aid cuts for prisoners were unlawful because they were “inherently unfair”. Vulnerable Prisoners There were major cuts to Legal Aid imposed in 2013, following the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO). These cuts have had a profound impact on prisoners, particularly vulnerable prisoners with mental health issues or disabilities. The Court of Appeal decided earlier this year that the current system does not have the capacity to fill the gaps left by the removal of Legal Aid, and that safeguards should have been implemented to ensure that all prisoner could engage in processes or decisions about their treatment. The cuts were therefore unlawful. The MoJ immediately declared that this decision would be challenged, but seven months later, before the case reached a hearing before the Supreme Court, the appeal application has been withdrawn. The department announced that it has begun to review the impact of cuts to legal aid, suggesting that someone, somewhere, may finally be listening to us. Not all good news Whilst this is clearly a victory for many prisoners, who for the last seven months have been unassisted with their progression, despite the cuts having been deemed “unlawful”, Legal Aid will not be reinstated at this stage for areas such as appeals against disciplinary decisions or disputes over access to prison courses. Legal Aid will now be available again for Pre-Tariff Reviews by the Parole Board, Category A Reviews and decisions on placing inmates in Close Supervision Centres. If you require advice or assistance in relation to these areas of Prison Law, please contact Stephanie Brownlees today on 01902 275 042 or you can email info@edenlegalservices.co.uk

The post Unlawful Legal Aid Cuts- The MoJ Backs Down appeared first on Eden Legal Services.