Select the search type
  • Site
  • Web
Search
Criminal Defence

Welcome to Penman Sedgwick!

Criminal Defence Cases

In the Matter of L ( A Minor )
Watford Youth Court

The minor was charged with Robbery contrary to Section 8(1) of the Theft Act 1968 with others. 

The Crown Prosecution were served with a Further Disclosure Request, requiring specific disclosure, and Further Information going to a Section 78 Application, Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. 

As a result the Crown Prosecution Service discontinued the matter. 

An Application was made for Defence costs to be taxed from the Central Fund, which was granted by the Magistrates

Magistrates Youth Court
In the case of B ( A Minor )

A minor was charged with robbery contrary to section 8(1) of The Theft Act 1968. A most detailed Defence Statement was submitted. Despite representations at plea, the date was set for trial. In the interim, detailed representations and disclosure requests were made to the Crown Prosecution Service, with further representations specifically directed at section 78 PACE 1984, and the Attorney General Guidelines, and in particular the duty to pursue reasonable lines of enquiry in investigation.

RESULT
The Crown Prosecution Service discontinued the charge.

APPLICATION TO THE COURT
The charge be withdrawn in Court and application for Defence Costs Order (assessment ) and was granted by the Court to be paid subject to assessment by HMCS National Taxing Team.

THE LAW:
Section 8 (1) Theft Act 1968: A person is guilty of robbery if he steals, and immediately before or at the time of doing so, and in order to do so, he uses any force or puts or seeks to put any person in fear of being then and there subjected to force.

R .v. T
St. Albans Crown Court

The Defendant was charged that without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, had with him in a public place, an offensive weapon, namely a multi tool unit, contrary tosection 139(1) Criminal Justice Act 2003.

THE LAW
Any person who has an article to which this section applies with him in a public place shall be guilty of an offence. This section applies to a folding pocket knife if the cutting edge of its blade exceeds 3 inches.On conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 4 years, or afine or both.The matter proceeded to trial.

LEGAL SUBMISSIONS at trial.
That a multi tool does not apply to a folding knife under 3 inches, and a matter of law if the multi tool falls within the definition of a folding knife or something different, and that there was no legal authority for a blade under 3 inches.The Learned Judge held that a knife has to be with a 3 inch blade, and the prosecution thereupon offered no evidence in trial.

RESULT
NOT GUILTY, PRIVATE COSTS OF THE DEFENCE ordered to be taxed from Central Funds.

R .v. K
St. Albans Crown Court

The Defendant was charged with assaulting a male thereby occasioning him actual bodily harm contrary to Section 47 of The Offences Against The Person Act 1861.The facts were that it was alleged that the defendant pushed the complainant in the chest then hit him in the face with what was believed to be a glass, so causing a number of injuries. The incident took place in the Area Nightclub in Watford.The Defendant pleaded Not Guilty.

THE LAW
Section 47 Offences Against The Person Act 1861Whosoever shall be convicted on indictment of any assault occasioning actual bodily harm shall be liable to imprisonment for not more than 5 years. This is a Class 3 offence, triable either way. 

THE JURY
On the conclusion of a most detailed trial of almost one week, involving substantial legal argument, the Jury returned a verdict after a time period of 45 minutes being a UNANIMOUS NOT GUILTY.

Mr Kane was released by the Learned Judge, legal costs applied for the privately paid defence and were granted to be paid from the Common Fund, such costs to be taxed.

In the matter of P

Allegation was made against P, an adult male, suffering from mental impairment, pervasive development disorder (autism) and learning disabilities, as to indecent sexual exposure to a female. Represented P at the police station, and the matter was not proceeded with.

FRAUD ACT 2006

R .v. O 
St. Albans Crown Court


The Defendant was charged with committing fraud in that, dishonestly and intending to make a gain for himself or another, or to cause loss to another, or to expose another to risk of loss, he made a false representation, which was and which he knew was or might be untrue or misleading, namely that, in an application to a Bank for a mortgage advance in the sum of £618,750 in respect of a property., in breach of Section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006.

The sentencing guidelines for Fraud, prescribes as the determinants of seriousness, include the `value of property or consequential loss involved` The custody range is between 2-6 years.

A Goodyear application based on all the facts of the matter was submitted to the Court, and on the basis thereof, the Defendant pleaded Guilty.

At sentence, the Defendant was sentenced to 6 months custody suspended for 24 months and an unpaid work requirement of 80 hours.

R .v. J.
Hemel Hempstead Magistrates Court.

The Defendant pleaded to (1) Section 4 Public Order Act 1986 (2) Section 1(1) Criminal Damage Act 1971 (3) and found guilty in trial for Assault on a police constable – Section 89 (1) Police Act 1996.  With regard to the serious nature if the charges, and after mitigation, the sentence provided by the Court was an 18 Month Supervision Order requirement to undertake pre/post Aggression Replacement Treatment and 80 hours works requirement and compensation for damage caused with prosecution costs.  The Defendant was under consideration for a custodial sentence.

R.v. E
St.Albans Crown Court,
Reported in the Watford Observer

Defended client charged contrary to section 4(2)(a) Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, who set up a small cannabis factory in the bedroom of her home. There were two large growing tents, with plants drying out in another tent. Chemicals were used to enhance the growth of the cannabis plants. The Court estimated the retail value of the drugs to be in the region of £5,000.00.  Legal submissions and established case law were put before the Court on behalf of the Defendant.  The Defendant was sentenced to 8 months custody suspended for 2 years and a requirement of 150 hours unpaid work over a period of 1 year and £425.00 costs of the prosecution. An order for the drugs to be destroyed was made.

R.v. L
St..Albans Crown Court

Client was charged by way of indictment on two counts: (1) causing racially aggravated intentional harassment, alarm or distress, contrary to Section 31(1)(b) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998  and (2) damaging property contrary to Section 1(1) of the Criminal damage Act 1971, that without lawful excuse damaged a window pane on a household property by covering it with spittle in a small part, belonging to the owner of that property.  Representations were made as to (1) above, which the prosecution withdrew in Court, and a plea of guilty was entered for (2). Mitigation was provided thereafter, and client was sentenced to a conditional discharge for 6 months.
(R.v.Wiebkin) In the Hemel Hempstead Magistrates Court. 1st April 2010.
Defended client charged initially contrary to section 1(1)(b) and (4) of The Malicious Communications Act 1988 as to grossly offensive telephone calls, later amended on submissions to section 127(1) Communications Act 2003. Plea of Guilty entered. Strong mitigation resulting in a suspended sentence and other requirements.

R .v. S 
City of Westminster Magistrates Court

Defended on an allegation of using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour or disorderly behaviour likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress and was racially aggravated in accordance with section 28 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, contrary to section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 and section 31(1)(c) and (5) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.    After submissions, the racially aggravated offence was withdrawn by the Crown Prosecution Service , plea of Guilty entered to section 5 Public Order Act 1986, and after detailed mitigation, sentence awarded was a  6 month conditional discharge, with no costs, fine or compensation against the Defendant.

R.v.W
St. Albans Crown Court.

Represented the Defendant on one count being that without a licence of copyright holders made for sale articles namely DVD`s of films which were and which he knew or had reason to believe were infringing copies of copyright works contrary to Section 107(1) (A) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.  A plea of Guilty was entered and robust mitigation given. 

Case fully reported in the Watford Observer : 26.02.10 (press) ; 28.02.10 (internet) ; Borehamwood and Elstree Times 23.02.10

R. v B.
St Albans Crown Court

Defended a client who exercised self defence against an attacker and was charged under s.47 Offences Against the Person Act 1861, causing actual bodily harm..  Not Guilty.

(In The Matter Of Terry Willis (Defendant) And In The Matter Of The Proceeds Of Crime Act 2002). Restraint order prohibiting disposal of assets. Reported in the Watford Observer.

Restraint Order Prohibiting Disposal Of Assets.  Instructed to Appeal to the Crown Court to challenge a Restraint Order against Mr W who had not been charged for a period of some six months, on the basis that the Restraint Order so issued on Application by the Hertfordshire Constabulary was unlawful and in contravention of the Human Rights Act, and contrary to a leading legal authority of the Court of Appeal.  The Honourable Judge on consideration of legal argument and submissions so made agreed and discharged the Restraint Order. Legal costs were awarded. 

R .v. D and Others,
Snaresbrook Crown Court

Instructed Leading Queens Counsel and Senior Counsel in a major drugs importation and supply of £50 million worth of cocaine into England, being one of the top tier organised world crime networks, the police operation code was named Operation Bella Vista, and involved the Carribean, USA, Canada, Europe and the UK. Defended the Head of the Organisation Network Mr D.
Reported in all National Newspapers and TV media.  Sunday Times 'Case of The Year 2006'.

Defended three active service soldiers on leave from Iraq who attacked a man in a Central London Street in an unprovoked attack, were found guilty but escaped receiving a prison sentence and were fined £1000 each and £1000 compensation to the victim.

Reported in the Sunday Mirror and Sky News:
Defended a well known footballer who purchased an illegal stun gun from the internet, was found guilty but received a Community Service Order.
Reported Guardian Newspaper

R.v.G
R.v.H
R.v.S
City of Westminster Magistrates Court

Instructed to defend three soldiers who attacked a man in a London street, by punching and kicking, and had his head stamped on in an unprovoked attack.

The Court as part of the mitigation was told  “ the men are an important part of a unit going to Iraq in May. It is better for experienced professional soldiers to be in Iraq at this country`s time of need. Young soldiers lives depend on their professional experience”

The Commander who appeared in full uniform was called as a Character Witness.

As a result the District Judge, accepted the mitigation put forward, and  fined the defendants £1,000.00 each and were ordered to pay £1,000.00 compensation to the victim, were banned from entering a zone within the M25 for 6 months, banned from all licensed premises for 6 months and ordered to remain in their Hampshire barracks on a curfew from 6pm to 6am for 3 months.

The soldiers escaped a lengthy custodial sentence.

Reported in the Sunday Mirror January 28, 2007.
Reported on Sky News

U .v. I
Dover Magistrates Court
Forfeiture Hearing
Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.

The Defendant was found to have in his possession £62,000.00 in cash passing through Eastern Docks in Kent on the way to France. The cash was seized and detained by HM Revenue and Customs.

On the basis of all evidence obtained and submissions made to the Court, and closing speech, the application for forfeiture was refused, and an Order made for the seized money to be returned directly with interest thereon. A most satisfactory result. 

TRADING STANDARDS CASE:

L.v.D
Ealing Magistrates Court

The Company was summonsed on 5 charges contrary to the requirements of the Furniture and Furnishings (Fire) (Safety) Regulations 1988 as amended, contrary to Regulation 15 of those Regulations and Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1987. In Court after submissions, one charge was withdrawn.

Additionally, each Director was summonsed with 5 charges contrary to the Furniture and Furnishings (Fire) (Safety) Regulations 988 as amended, contrary to Regulation 15 of those Regulations and Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1987, and neglect as a Director of the body corporate by virtue of Section 40 of the Act.
After submissions 5 charges in respect of the second Director were withdrawn.

The Magistrates after lengthy legal submissions in mitigation fined the Company £2,500.00; the one Director a fine of £10,000.00, full prosecution costs in the case, and a forfeiture and destruction order against the seized furniture.

The Magistrates accepted the submissions in  mitigation and as a result avoided a  sentence of custody for the Director.

If you need advice on a legal matter please contact us, and we will respond as soon as possible,
or call us on 01923 225212.

Practice Area - Criminal

We are a member of Watford Business Club
The Partners are Members of the LLP | Authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority | Registered office: 5 George Street, Watford, Hertfordshire, WD18 0SQ
Penman Sedgwick LLP is a limited liability partnership, registered in England and Wales under registered number OC330645