Hello on. Welcome to this Webinar. On behalf of Data Law, my name is calling Beaumont. I'm retired now, but I waas for many years A solicitor in private practice in Thames Valley. This one hour webinar is part two of an examination of the common offenses of that you'll encounter when having to sit the written examination as part of your police station accreditation. The webinar will also be immensely useful for anyone advising suspects at the police station State huge and also that when advising clients at court now, this is part two that the common events is I have already done another webinar part one in which I did cover six of the common events is part two covers The remaining fun leave common offenses that are the subject off the examination. So let's just have a look Then at slide to the first of these common offenses for consideration is assault occasioning actual bodily harm. This is an offence country to section 47 at the offenses against the Person Act 18 61. It is an either way. Events carry a maximum of six months imprisonment in the magistrate called or five years on indictment It carries seven years on indictment if the offenses racially or religiously aggravated assault occasioning actual bodily harm has the same actors Reyes and men's rare as common assault with two additional elements. Firstly, it is assault occasioning and by occasioning we mean that injury has to be occasioned. As you know, with common assault, there need be no actual injury. But with this particular events, injury must be occasioned on it is the strict liability on element of the offence. In other words, it doesn't require any guilty money in the act alone is sufficient. If injury has bean occasioned in So far as the actives race is concerned, causation is required it the defendant must in some way have caused the injury. Of course, it might be that the injury and is a complete accident this might afford at the defendant. With the defense so occasioning there, the strict liability aspect of the offensive injury has in fact that being occasioned now actual bodily harm the harm must be more than merely transient or trifling. There must be some harm. It maybe I know a bruise. It may be a black eye as I put there an example of actual bodily harm might be cutting off someone's hair without consent. It can also cover psychiatric injury. But of course, expert evidence will be required by the court. If the crown's case is that the home was have a psychiatric nature. Evidence of fear, distress or panic are not enough to make out the offense of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. Other offenses, of course, under the Public Order Act, come to mind the same defenses apply as applied to common assault. In other words, if you're merely defending yourself or you're defending another person, then of course you may well have a defense, even though you have assaulted someone occasioning actual. But he home the defense that was run on in a very famous case in which a group of men aim private committed acts of Sadio massacres of upon one another that will not avail the client. I doubt if you ever come across it. But in that particular case it was almost a public policy decision where the court said that if you assault people occasioning them actual bodily harm, then even though they are fully consenting, because this is a sadomasochism that will not be a defense reasonable chastisement of a child money beer defense in relation to common assault. But it's not that defense in relation to assault occasioning actual bodily harm. That didn't used to be the case. But times have changed. And at court, the prosecution makes Ito amend a charge of actual bodily harm to common assault. Come. The soldiers, you know, is a summary only offense. With a six month limitation period, the charge of actual bodily harm can be amended even though six months more than six months have elapsed so long as the A B H was charged within the six month period. Now, as we all now with the P station, many of these assaults occur within a domestic situation. So please, please do go on to the sentence in camps a website and have a look. Please at the sentencing guidelines. Overarching principles. Domestic abuse very recently published. The guideline applies equally in the youth court as it does in the adult court. It applies to all Avengers age 16 or over sentenced on or after 24th of May 2000 and 18 if the offense occurs within a domestic situation than a restraining order that might be a possibility at court at See Section five off the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. Orders can still be made if acquitted. See Section five A of the act If it's necessary for a restraining order to made for someone's protection where admissions are made in consultation at the police station. Do please give some thought to advising the client to make a no comment interview on it may well be that the parties will become reconciled. And, of course, it might not be beneficial if the client has made full admissions. That's going to be extremely useful to the crown now, where there's a denier in consultation. Of course, you could consider advising your plane to answer or of the questions are putting forward. The denied in the interview all perhaps considered buys in the client to have a no comment interview on dime drafting a written statement setting out the terms or facts of the events which your plant could read out in the interview. Or you could read out on the client's Bihar. Always having mind please. If it is a domestic situation, the client attacking the character of the complainant and during the interview. Clearly, the client does attack the character of the complainant during the interview. This is one of the gateways for the crown to be able to get in the defendant's bad character. A trial under Section 101 off the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Obviously, every time he's different. But you just have to give some thought to whether or not your plant will explode during the interview. And if there's a danger that even though they haven't events, there's a lot to be said for advising a no comment interview on reading out a pre prepared depends statement. It's a great way of controlling at the interview Ondas. It were preventing the client from inadvertently allowing the crown to get you a bad character. Now, before I moved to fray. I just want to make one final point in relation to the men's rare at for the events of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. Now the men's Raya is short off intent that doesn't need to be on intent. In order for a B H to be made out. Recklessness will do on recklessness is the state of mine at the person who effectively appreciates that a risk exists but still goes on to take that risk. Or a person could be reckless if they give no thought to the risk, and you'll find that many of these assaults are caused recklessly. There isn't necessarily any intent on the part of the client to actually calls on actual bodily harm, but so what? The crown don't need to prove intent. I think it is an important point to bear in mind that when you're dealing with ourselves, the only assault that actually requires intent is grievous bodily harm with intent. And that's contrary to section 18 of the offences against the Persons Act 18 61. Okay, well, let's look at another then of the common events is, and this time we're looking at afraid, which is Section three of the Public Order Act 1986 and I'm on Slide six. Now if you look at the Public Order Act, there are fine offenses relating to public disorder. Section One deals with by its gosh. You won't encounter that very often in the police station. It requires at least 10 people to be participating. Section two violent disorder requires at least three of vendors. Section three a. Frey could be committed by a person alone. Section four threatening behaviour can be committed alone section. Finally, disorderly conduct can be committed alone. Now don't get me wrong that there must be other people at the sea You But of course, it only requires one offender your client for a Section three a section fall or a Section five. We also have section for a intentionally causing a person harassment, alarm or distress. A new offense which fall was between threatening behaviour and different afraid is in either way events. It carries six months imprisonment in the Magistrates called three years on indictment. So what is afraid all about? Well, under Section three, a person is guilty off a three if he uses or threatens unlawful violence towards another on, and his conduct is such as would have caused a person or reasonable firmness present at the scene to fear for his personal safety. Where there are two or more people involved in this particular afraid, it is the conduct of them taken together, which is to be judged. No person of reasonable firmness need actually be or likely to be present at the scene itself. There are three elements of the actors raise have been afraid. First, me, the offender must use all threatened violence. Mere words are not enough to this. Use off threat, use or threat or violence must be towards another person. And thirdly, it is behavior, as would cause a person off reasonable firmness. President seen to fear for their safety. Of course, the whole rationale behind the offense or afraid is it. Effectively, It is a crime against other people who are at the scene. These are the people calls on being people who might who might fear for their own safety. An example of afraid would be setting a dog upon a policeman with instructions to bite. Another example might be driving a car at another vehicle, but not, of course, it. That other vehicle was empty on a freeway could be committed by one person, one offender alone if mawr than one. Then, of course, it is the conduct of them taken together and in order to establish whether or no on afraid has taken place, the violence used must be unlawful. Violence, self defense and other defenses are available. The point and often is forgotten by police officers on prosecutors. But that, of course you may. Well, he had vertically engage in behavior which might, on the face of it, seem like a gray. But of course, you're using violence in the protection of yourself or in the protection off others. And that, of course, would afford a defense to a charge of the frame. The vines must be directed at another person, not property. You can't as it were on having afraid, where you've directed your violence at an empty car. The person towards whom the violence is directed must be at the scene. So that's the second person, obviously one offender but a second person who must be there, the person to towards whom the violence is directed. If there is no other person at the scene, then the offense is not committed. Remember, this is a public order offence. The clue is in the word public. On what sort of violence is it? Well, it is. Violence sits. It sits that 1/3 party off reasonable firmness who may or may not be present at the scene to fear for their personal safety. Let me put some flesh on the bones of this because it's often misunderstood. Now let's assume that the third person at the scene, you waas Rambo now then, though, may not have feared for his personal safety, so warped it's not whether the third person at the scene, the member of the public vanloh, fears for his personal safety. That's not the test. The test is the mythical person of reasonable firmness. But, of course, Vam, Bow or someone else, some other member of the public must have bean at the scene. The point is that that person might not be the type of person is it were who would fear for their own personal safety. But if a mythical person, a reasonable firmness, would have feared for their safety at the scene than the offense is made out. As I said earlier, this section is designed to protect third parties, members of the public, bystanders, those people walking past rather than those involved in the actual violence. If the fight is confined to just the two participants and of no one else around, this is not afraid on a Frey could be committed in private as well as in public places. But of course, some third person must be there. So just to summarize, if you think about it, there must be at least three or more war people at the scene. Firstly, the person using or threatening unlawful violence. Secondly, the person to whom the violence or threat is directed. Thirdly, the person off, reasonable, firm nurse who need no actually be present, but someone needs to be present. The men's rare have been afraid is that the defendant must intend to use or threaten violence. All must be aware that his conduct may be violent or threatening violence. So it's something lower than an intent. Let's deal now with the third off the common offenses that being dealt with in this particular webinar. This time it's possession of an offensive weapon. Section one off the Prevention of Crime Act 1953 a bit tricky, but I hope this webinar will clarify the position. I know that police officers have difficulties in this particular area. Firstly, let's start in the very beginning. It is an offence to carry on offensive weapon in public unless on these are the statutory defences contained within the Section one has a lawful authority to carry that particular weapon all a reasonable excuse for so doing. An offensive weapon could be anything made or used as a weapon. Firearms are excluded as thes air covered in different legislation. The onus, of course, is upon the carrier of the weapon to show any lawful authority or reasonable excuse as a static pre defense, the person must know that they have the weapon upon them. On the burger is upon the prosecution to prove the knowledge of the fact that they had this particular weapon with them at the time. Forgetfulness will no help if they have it, and they knew at one state huge that they had it. But they now have forgotten that they've got it. Possession does not come or go with one's memory. The offense could only occur in a public place. This is a question of fact for the cooled. If the issue is flagged up by the defense once a not guilty plea has been entered, the prosecution must establish that this occurred within a public place. Public place, as you know, is defined as anywhere that the public have access to weather on payment of a fee well, otherwise possession off offensive weapons of course, it's important to appreciate whether all not that this is taking place in a public place or a private place. A landing on a block of flats, No barriers to progress. Public place. Why? Because the public generally had access to this block of flats if they wanted it. A landing on a block of flats, entry by key or intercom? Not a public place. Why? Because the general public did not have access to this block of flats entry being restricted to those people having a key. All those people being allowed access at via the intercom? No, there are three different types or categories of offensive weapons. Firstly, weapons that are specifically made to cause injury. Butterfly knives, flick knives, race fly, rice, flails, truncheons. These are what we call offensive, per se per se off itself. It has been made to cause injury, I'm afraid, much as you might want to, you cannot carry around in a public place a butterfly knife, a flick knife, a rice flair or even a truncheon. Of course, if you're a police officer, then you're permitted to carry a truncheon because, of course, you have lawful authority. So to do then the items adapted to cause injury, a bottle that's been smashed and now has a jagged age. Of course, if it's a beer bottle, it's just a beer bottle. But as soon as it smashed and has a jagged edge and you start as it were approaching someone with it, this then becomes an item adapted to cause injury. The third item, or the third category, are simply items that you are allowed to carry around with you. But of course, the crown must show that you have the item with the intention off causing injury to someone. A baseball bat might be an example of that category. A slight 16 we call weapons made to cause injury. Offensive weapons per se. See the Criminal Justice Act 1988. Offensive Weapons order 1980 years. That order doesn't contain an exhaustive list on but all of the weapons listed in that order offensive person. So if it's on that list, you cannot carry it around with you in public. Absent a lawful authority or reasonable excuse, mere possession of an offensive weapon per se is sufficient to make out the case. In other words, the prosecution don't need to prove any intention with offensive weapons per se, their cases made out. If they can put you in a public place with that particular weapon on you, they merely need to prove possession. Of course, it is possession of an offensive weapon without a lawful authority or a reasonable excuse on, I would have thought most of the time your client is going to be struggling to come up with some lawful authority or reasonable excuse. Have a a set of rice flails upon him, or a butterfly ni or a flick knife, or any one of the myriad add on items that are offensive person side 17. Some weapons are no offensive per se, but may be adapted to cause injury. A bottle, which is broken and therefore has a jagged edge would be a classic example that this again, if you've got that type of item with you, the prosecution don't need to prove that you have the item with you. With the intention of causing injury, the prosecution merely have to prove simple possession. Someone else may have done their adapt team. Someone else may have smash the beer bottle and handed it to you clients sometimes have problems grasping this particular concept that as soon as you have in your possession on item which has bean adapted the prosecution do not need to prove that you had it on you with intention to cause injury. It's almost as if we can infer that you had it on you with an intention to cause injury because of your behaviour with that particular broken bottle. Of course, it would be a defense if you had a lawful authority or a reasonable excuse toe have that particular item with you. It might be that you're on your own and you're surrounded by a group of 10 people who want to do you serious harm it. Maybe you've got that item on you as it were as the only means of defending yourself from death or serious bodily injury. That might be a defense that might be a reasonable excuse for having that bottle with a jagged edge on you. The third category of weapon is an item being tended to be used to cause injury. These are items that you're allowed toe have on you in a public place, but you're no allowed toe. Have them on you if your intention with them is to cause injury to other people, a baseball bat might be a classic example. There's nothing long ordinarily with having a baseball bat on you. Why you might be off to the park to play a game off baseball. But of course, if it's late at night and you're outside and night club and your bare chested and you're a bit drunk on your waving a baseball back in the air, shouting at people, come outside. If you think you're hard enough, I give these would be too difficult for a court to infer that you had that baseball back with you on that occasion in order to cause others some injury. Yeah, everything depends upon the facts. And I tell you this at the police station stage, viewing the CC TV footage might be very useful before your client decides to say anything in your view. Now, because you're allowed to carry a baseball bat around with you, the prosecution must prove that you had it with intention to cause injury intention to cause injury. Recklessness will not do. They must show an intense. I have no doubt the intent could be inferred from the surrounding circumstances, These intense often are inferred. A conditional intent would do carrying it around in case of meeting a particular person who know he's going to do you some harm that we do. You can't carry around on offensive weapon as it were intending it to be used. If you meet a particular person who you know might want to do you some home picking up a snooker cue with the intention of causing injury, the offense is made out picking up the cue to play snooker. That is the reason for the possession. Then hitting someone with it may well amount to an assault. But it is no possession of an offensive weapon because, of course, you didn't possess it with the intention or call was in injury to a passage, which of course must be made out in order for you to be guilty off a possession with intent in relation to the snoop liqueur. I say 10 recklessness is recklessness is insufficient. Bakhram must show an intent that's like 19 private security guards have no right to carry around offensive weapons. Police officers do, of course, police officers carry truncheons. Police officers carry mace they carry all sorts of things, which the law allows them to do in order to exercise or perform at their normal beauties. As I put there on slide, 19 police officers as well as soldiers are given lawful authority to carry things around, which are offensive weapons per se but not the general public. Well, I say, not the general public. Of course, even if you're a member of the general public, the crown merely have to show that you had the item on you. The duty, then, is upon you to show lawful authority or reasonable excuse. It's gonna be jolly difficult to show lawful authority or reasonable excuse if it's an offensive weapon per set like, for example, a flick knife. If you are going to argue lawful authority or reasonable excuse, of course, because the duty is placed upon you as the defense, you have to raise that on. Establish evidentially that defense on a balance of probabilities, the civil standard or proof, the carpet fitter who has a Stanley knife or a fisherman who has a knife. These people may be arguing a reasonable excuse about having the item on them, namely in the course of their work. I'm sure your average carpet bitter does carry a Stanley knife around with him or her. It's a bite toe full of being a carpet fitter, and I would have thought it would be a rather strange police officer who wanted to arrest the person going into a house with a rolled up carpet over his shoulder because he was simply in possession of a Stanley knife. Of course, it might be quite different if that carpet fitter has that standing I've in his pocket at late at night, two o'clock in the morning, perhaps when he is very drunk on outside a nightclub. Possession on those facts might well be problematic. I doubt he fits carpets at 2 a.m. In the morning. Now, if you face an imminent threat of being attacked, you know that there are people as it were out to get you and they're out to get you now. You just might have a reasonable excuse for having an item on you for self defense. But that is a very, very, very tricky defense not to get home lawful authority or reasonable excuse. Remember the only defense If the item is offensive But I say what you can't do. Courses carry around an offensive weapon on the off chance that it might be useful, Do you if you're going to be ever attacked? That might seem like a good idea to some clients, but I can tell you now is a lawyer, and it's not a good idea. In practice on leaves, use leaves you yourself open onto a suggestion or virtuality of possession of an offensive weapon in a public place without lawful authority. Always an excuse. There you are. I hope that helped. I'm just going to summarize it. If I'm a very briefly by saying that if the offensive weapons offensive per se or its bean made or adapted to cause injury, the prosecution don't have to show that you had it on you with intent to call someone injury. They merely have to show that you were in possession off. The only stent falls upon you to show some sort of lawful authority or reasonable excuse toe happy item on you. This is not so in the third category of items that you are allowed to have on you like a baseball back where in order for the charge to be made out, the crown must established that you had it with intent to cause others injured. I hope that's clear. It's certainly a live issue when you're advising clients aka P Station Strange. Okay, let's turn now to criminal damage away something again, which is a quite prevalent on upon which you would have to advise fairly frequently for no damn e sexual. One of the Criminal Damage Act 1974. This essentially isn't either way of bent. If the damage is less than £5000 it becomes summary only on a determination by the court. You can shop hunch the events of criminal damage outside of the sick man, period, because it is always and either way, events to begin with. And it remains either way, unless and until the magistrate call determines that because of its value I less than £5000 it is summary only. And of course, if it is summary, only as many criminal damages are because the value is less than £5000 it becomes summary. Only with no right to reelect got my do. The defense within the section is one of lawful excuse criminal damage without effectively a lawful excuse to commit that damn the property must belong to another. The men's rare. The guilty nine is intention to damage or recklessness as to whether or not that damage was caused. We looked at recklessness before. Recklessness, of course, is the state of mind of the person who either gives no thought to their being a risk on perceiving that a risk exists, he or she. Nevertheless, that goes on to take the risk. That is the the act of a records person. It's always a question of fact as to whether or not something has bean damaged some examples. There are things that don't ordinarily spring to mind is being criminal damage. The soaking of a blanket flooding of the floor of a piece cell held to be criminal damage. Unauthorized deletion of a program from a computer. Criminal damage jamming an email system by overloading it with spam messages. Criminal damage. Criminal damage may be caused to land. Remember, from part one, we look at theft in part one. It is not possible to steal land. Although it is possible to steal items from the land, you can cause criminal damage to living creatures you can criminally Gammage a cat. You can criminally damage a dog. You cannot criminally damage a human being. And apparently a criminal damage is no made out by picking wild mushrooms. But I must confess, I would have thought it would have been made out. It is not possible to cause criminal damage to property wholly owned by yourself. You'll come across this at the police station stage where he and let's be frank. It's usually he in a fit of temper that not only commits an act of violence but starts smashing up the furniture or even smashing up the property as well. You have to give some thought as to who owns this particular property. If it's owned solely by the client, of course, then no active criminal damage is made. If, of course, it's owned by the other party or if it's jointly owned or if it's owned by the camp. So then, of course, of the active criminal damage is many reckless nurse is a subjective test. Was the defendant aware of the risk dress? Maybe events that damaging property to protect life or limb, or damaging the property to protect other property, not guilty if the defendant believed that the person owning the property would have consented to the damage. Criminal damage on indictment carries a maximum of 10 years imprisonment. Criminal damage in Magistrates called carries a maximum penalty of three months imprisonment. Alison don't get confused about Arsen. Arsen is merely criminal. Damage by fire on criminal damage by fire is always, always triable. Either way, even if the criminal damage arson by fire is to a mattress valued at £10 the value off the damage is irrelevant if it's criminal damage by fire damage to a mattress value £10 5 Live the way client can elect far by jury, if you will. She wants to remember with criminal damage. Most of the time, the value is relevant. Damage below £5000. Summary. Only £5000 or above started either way. Okay, let's now consider in relation to these common offenses at Drugs Offenses section for me of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. Now there are many offenses, of course, in relation to plugs, but I just want to deal with the most common ones. If I may, A possession of drugs and possession of drugs with intent to supply. You will come across other offenses in relation to drugs, but they're not considered in this particular weapon. Our I'm thinking of things like cultivation of cannabis on producing goods, manufacturing drugs. These are all of Venice's under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. And as you know, the act categorizes drugs with Class A at being the most serious, followed by Class B and Class C. Being the least serious, the prosecution must show that your client, the suspect or the defendant possess it's a controlled drug. Under the act, possession involves physical possession on knowledge of possession. If someone does not know they have them, then of course, there is no possession. But forgetfulness is no events. It may be that you're applying is in possession of a small amount of cannabis for personal use that he only uses that jacket very occasionally, and he tells you what he simply forgotten that he put the canopies. He's jacket pocket because he knew that he was in possession of it at the time when he put it in his jacket pocket. But he's now forgotten about it, but I'm afraid yes, possession does not come or go with your memory. Even though you've forgotten you got something in law, you still possess it physical possession or subject to your controlled classic. The drugs are in the glove compartment of the car, and it's your car you are deemed to be in possession off items that are subject to your control. People in joint possession of drugs, where they all draw from a common pool of blood, swell at more than one person that might be possession, whether a group of people in a house or knowing that drugs are there ALS drawing from a common. But the meeting knowledge at the existence of bloods in a house is not sufficient for possession. The prosecution do not need to prove that the defendant knew it was a drug. The prosecution must prove possession, knowledge of possession and the fact that it was a drug. I just clarify that the prosecution do not need to prove it was a particular type of drug. My class A Class B might be classy. Your client might have thought it was a Class C drug, but if it turns out to be a class A drug he's still in possession or feeds. Of course, the penalties might be very different for possession of a Class A drug rather than a Class C drug on that might involve a Newton hearing. I have a little chat about that you know about now, as I put that, the prosecution must prove possession, knowledge or possession off the drug, however, see Section 28 3 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 very important section shall be acquitted if he proves that he neither believed nor suspected, nor had reason to suspect that the substance or product in question was a controlled block. So they are. There's the defense. It may be that your client says, Well, yeah, being found to be in possession of drugs. But I neither believe nor suspected nor in an objective sense, had any reason to suspect that the substance that I was in possession off was indeed a controller. Self induced intoxication, of course, will not be a defense, because reason to suspect is an objective test rather than subject. It will not be a defense that the defendant thought that it was another type of broke. Of course, it may call for a new tin hearing as it made materially affect the sentence. Of course, a Newton hearing will take place following a guilty plea where the client said, Yeah, but I thought I was in possession of Class C. KROQ's. I didn't know there were class, and you will. In those circumstances. Of course, the guilty plea is being entered on the basis of possession of plants. See if the crown don't accept that. No doubt it would make a material difference to the centers. The case will need to be adjourned. Evidence will need to be heard for the court to establish whether all know the crown of poop factually beyond a reasonable doubt that he knew that he was in possession or a Class A. The burden is upon the prosecution to establish their backs to the required criminal standard in a Newton hearing. The leading case in this particular area is R B. Navarro Navarra on the city of Westminster magistrate, where evidence is adduced by the defendant. As I put their, the burden is still upon the crown to show factually beyond a reasonable doubt the actual nature or classifications of the drugs. Watch out for possession of drugs with intent to supply them to another. It may well be that there is a suspicion bearing in mind the drug related paraphernalia upon your client upon arrest, bearing in mind the way in which the drugs were package upon arrest. It may well be that the police suspect that he is indeed a Do you accept, Nyah? Of course, I'm sure you're aware of the fact that the penalties for supply that drugs are so much harsher than those or simple possession and maybe on occasion that you would advice applying to have a no comment interview on merely read out a statement of the client accepting that he was in possession of the drugs. But they were possession for his own personal circumstances and that he wasn't a supplier. Of course, it may be problematic if they've got a house search under Section 18. Pace on. They discovered along sorts of things at his house address, including lists including money which would, of course, lend weight to their arguments that he is a supplier. A plus now, so sure supply is still supply. This is something offer that misunderstood by clients who've seem to think that you can only be guilty of supplying a control blood if you're doing it commercially, if there's money involved. If you're seeking to make some sort of profit, I'm afraid this is not the case. If you're supplying your mates out of the goodness of your heart with drugs, you are nevertheless at drugs supply. These matters, of course, go to sentence, but they don't go to guilt, and it may well be that if the client is supplying his mates, that's the very last thing he wants to be saying during his interview. It may well be pertinent on appropriate toe if I seem to go, you coming as I put there. It's a requirement that the prosecuted specify the class of drug that they allege is being supplied. Nickel A B, we'll see. And as already mentioned, if there is going to be any dispute in relation to this, it may well call for a looting hearing. In order to the crown who seek to establish their backs to the required criminal stand, the men's Veria is intention to supply mere recklessness that will not do. Do please be aware off the definitive guideline on drugs offenses published by the sentencing council. At least particular guidelines came out in February 2000 and 12. Of course, that whilst you're wrong at the sentencing council website, do please, please have a look at all of the other guideline. We have guidelines coming around to our years on the gave me tremendously useful to you. Not only that, when advising clients at the police station stage as to whether or not he or she should no comment the interview, but also at wise in the clients have called in relation to their plane. How can I just say a couple of words, please? He's about at the police station. Strange. Now it may be that your client has made full admissions to you of the offense in question. There may be jolly good reasons for advising him or her to go. No comment. But I just need to point out by May the case of Caylee c A L E y Caylee another's December 2000 and 12 a very important case in which the Lord Chief Justice said that if you advise no comment, he having made full admissions to it, might impact upon his sentence because There are circumstances in which the judge will regard the fact that admissions were made during the interview as an important mitigating factor that whereby the sentence is started at a lower starting point than it otherwise would be. And from that lower starting point. Whatever credit is coming, the clients way is given dependent upon being indication off guilt on the timing of that particular indication. Well, there you are. I've done be five common offenses in relation to this particular webinar. Don't forget the very part one in which I've considered the other six common offenses. So those 11 together will give you a very decent grounding in the offenses on the defense's. If you're going to have to sit this sub examination as part of your police station on accreditation examination. It's also, of course, incredibly useful to you that when advising clients at the police station stage, well, they are now. That's the our up and all that remains is to thank you on behalf of Data law for listening to me watching this particular webinar and hopefully for watching the other webinar as well. I do do quite a few webinars with data law, and I look forward to your company again in the not too distant future. Thank you
Part 1
Notes
Quiz 
2339 Users
82 Courses
118 Reviews
